• RECONSIDER: The article "Peter Betan" has been a part of wikipedia knowledge for 12 years. This article has merit. When first created the wikipedia editors and users were very supportive and assisted thru the process of publishing, and bringing the article to a level of compliance. Wikipedia published the article legitimately 12 years ago. We continue to stand our ground regarding the article "Peter Betan" It is NOT an article for promotion and was never intended to be. It is an article which provides solely knowledge, historical / career information coupled with discography and achievement credentials of the articles subject. Jeske Couriani has prejudiced his perspective by impulsive judgement, false accusations of fabrication and making a very poor comparison of the "Peter Betan" article to that of the "Seigenthal" article. And it is my opinion that he has no, or offered any proof to his unfounded claim when he stated: "That's what promoters do when they're told they are promoters" This is only a notion and a poorly preconceived opinion. We are NOT promoters. We understand and respect Wikipedia's regulations and guidelines and apologize profusely for the unintentional un-sourced claims in the article, our inexperience in utilizing the tools for linking and claiming documented web sources and the COI. In our previous comment on this page we explained that claims, links and sources expire, lapse and die out. We did not use the tools to replace these claims for updated ones properly and correctly hence, the current situation of nomination to delete the article "Peter Betan" We will not be doing any further editing or additions to the article "Peter Betan" and are asking for help from wikipedia to further improve the authenticity of this article as well as bringing it to the level of compliance if wikipedia decides not to delete it. Either way, we will accept the decision of deletion with no ill will. With much thanks - Betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo ( talk • contribs) 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The article "Peter Betan" has merit. It is NOT an autobiography. It is an article providing historical/ career information coupled with music discography, achievements and credentials of the subject. It did NOT "Fly under the radar" it was simply an article providing information on a true life original artist who has notoriety, influence to regional culture and has been working as an independent performing artist for over 30 years. The article "Peter Betan" is not slanderous, offensive, inciteful, fabricated, exaggerated or full of falsehoods. When you say "I cant make heads or tails of it" the readers can, and have for 12 years. The article has had and continues to have major visibility on the internet. When the subject of the article is searched or researched on the internet (just like wikipedia is) it reaches the many who want to know information on a certain subject, person or artist. The article is simply an article of historical information about a musical artist coupled with music catalog, and credentials all factual and executed with the utmost objectivity which should have been properly sourced (which the contributor (same as the subject of the article) did not do well at all) We have declared and presently again, that the article has COI's The first is that the contributor is the same as the subject of the article (one person) which I profusely apologize again about. The second COI lays with the neglect of maintenance of the article and the incorrect handling of the tools that wikipedia provides for sourcing claims and attaching them to the statements and historical facts pertaining to the subject in the article. All these issues happened due to improper usage of the research and sourcing tools wikipedia provides, not for the purpose of fabrication of falsehoods of the subject or to fool the readers. The article "Peter Betan" has merit and was created with the utmost ethical objectivity in mind. Again, apologies regarding the issues and conflicts that have occurred. Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The marketing speech does not work here. We are not interested in your attempts to re-create the Seigenthaler incident and we're decidedly not impressed by your impassioned attempts at promotion here on this page (Which, if I may be blunt, are terrifically counter-productive). [T]he readers can, and have for 12 years is not a valid argument when this article has evidently been flying under the radar for so long by virtue of predating the 2011 RfC that formed the basis for our present standards-enforcement situation. You also say the page is NOT an autobiography (emphasis in original and that the contributor is the same as the subject of the article; these claims are patently mutually-exclusive. The only way I can see those statements reconciled is if Betan is hiring freelancers, which to us is considerably more damning as that is a terms of use violation that admins here can and do block for. And as I said above, "We want to share information" is functionally the same sort of argument as "We want to advertize". — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Bottom line, Betinfo: Exactly what criteria in WP:MUSICBIO do you meet? We have articles here based on established inclusion criteria. This page is not the venue to change the rules. If a topic doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, we cannot have an article on it. Period. How long one out of millions of other articles has survived here is totally irrelevant. The fact that the article conveys information is irrelevant. The fact that Peter Betan exists is irrelevant; mere existence is not a qualification for inclusion. The topic must be notable, and WP:MUSICBIO lays out all the ways a musical artist can be notable. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, prior to this AfD the article was averaging about 1 view every few days. How exactly is that not flying under the radar?-- 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 13:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• FURTHER RECONSIDERATION: The topic of the article "Peter Betan" IS notable. Read the article and its contents it includes achievements, credentials, high level concert openings, extensive discography, film placement and factual history of a career that spans over 30 years as an independent artist. To say this is not notable or irrelevant is utterly ridiculous. This is not marketing or promotion, there is no boasting, or inducement to buy product. It is just information on a notable and significant independent artist. Your reasons for deletion are based on personal bias, have a one dimensional perspective and the fear that wikipedia will suffer if the article is left to the reader. Yes, it has defects due to mishandling of the source tools, and the subject is the same as the contributor. It has been declared and we apologize. In the final analysis, the article "Peter Betan" has merit (please see previous RECONSIDERATION comments on this page for further insight into the topic of RECONSIDERATION of the "Peter Betan" article. This article is NOT promotional. It is factual information based on the subject of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  You're basically making the same arguments ad nauseam, none of which are convincing in the slightest. I suspect part of the reason is your own conflict of interest in the matter; it's one thing to advocate for an article but quite another to parrot the same arguments until the cows come home when it's clear nobody considers them to be good ones. I have read the article and its contents. Its sources are fatally lacking even by 2009 standards. I have read your arguments. They amount to "We wrote this to advertise Betan", as your arguments-by-bizarre-definition make painfully clear to your case's detriment.

  There is no boasting, or inducement to buy product betrays a very simplistic idea of what forms promotion on Wikipedia generally assume. Most promotion on Wikipedia is not so obvious. Your reasons for deletion are based on personal bias, have a one dimensional perspective and the fear that wikipedia will suffer if the article is left to the reader is, if I may be blunt, bullshit. My argument largely centres around WP:Biographies of living persons, which exists because we've been, and still continue to be, burned by unsourced biographical claims that should have been dealt with immediately once they became obvious instead of being left to fester because you and everybody else who claims to actually care apparently couldn't be arsed to bring the sourcing on the article to an acceptable standard. I would imagine if you actually cared, at some point within those 12 years you'd have actually swotted up on BLP and started either finding good sources or trimming the violating material from the article. It is just information on a notable and significant independent artist is, as I've spelt out twice now already and will spell out again, a bullshit claim that people caught promoting things on Wikipedia fall back on in an attempt to not have their promotional junk removed, and is in practise a distinction with no actual difference. [I]t has defects due to mishandling of the source tools is incorrect; the issue is that the source tools were at best underused and at worst disregarded save for the absolute bare minimum for this article to fend off 2009-era AfDs.

  Now, are you done wasting your time and ours making these same, boilerplate arguments that nobody else here is taking seriously? This has started to become disruptive. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• RECONSIDERATION AND LENIENCE REQUESTED IN SPITE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND INSULT BY JESKE COURIANOAccusatory, slanderous and outright hostile remarks with a veil of pseudo intellect doesn't cut it. May I say your limited knowledge of what is notable borders on the pathetic. If you are now speaking for everybody as you say, then you are just embarrassing yourself further and loosing your credibility in your (whatever your job description is) We are being repetitive because our defense and claims are true and must be repeated to maintain innocence. You, (Jeske Couriano) are being very repetitive as well with the same accusatory remarks and false, hostile accusations. There is only one criteria for an artist becoming notable and that is...being established. Being established where you regionally reside, where you perform, where you create, where you make your living, where you promote, advertise and gain local popularity. The subject of the article is a regionally established artist and has been for over 30 years. The subject of the article has not had the need or desire to use the article "Peter Betan" as a means of promotion... just as a means to maintain notability within the "family of wikipedia" as you have welcomed me . Wikipedia has not contributed nor used for the subjects popularity or marketing, nor has the subject mentioned any promotional commentary in the article. We have declared that the article has COI's due to negligence in the maintenance of the source tools provided and that the contributor is the same as the subject. The article has been edited, sliced, diced and stripped to its bare bones by your editor(s). Ok, that's all well and good and acceptable. But its been stripped down along side prejudice, reprimand, false accusations, hostility and insult. I am asking for help to bring the article to a level of compliance. Legitimate sources are there to support the facts we just gotta dig. Can Wikipedia assist me? We continue to stand our ground. The article has merit it is not a fabrication, the subject is a true life established original independent regional artist which qualifies for an article of notability coupled with historical/ career information, discography and credentials. Thank you - Betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo ( talk • contribs) 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Warning, also on Betinfo's usertalk. Please be civil and drop the personal accounts against Jéské Couriano (or any other editor you may disagree with). Please also consider not repeating yourself extensively. You've made your comment as to why you believe it should be kept, please allow others to weigh in. Star Mississippi 18:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• The warning is acknowledged, thank you. But will all due respect Mississippi, within the matter of "Please be civil..." your warning should also extend to Jeske Couriani He has been profane towards the article in question and myself, especially in his latest commentary. Thanks - betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo ( talk • contribs) 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm under no obligation to be nice to a user who only reads comments insofar as to find a straw man they can destroy. I note that you haven't really even attempted to rebut the bulk of what I've said above. And the only reason I'm being repetitive is because you're bringing out the same old, tired Vaudevillian act that got gonged every other time you've trotted it out and is still going to get gonged because it's flat-out not a winner from a policy standpoint. Also, "limited knowledge of what is notable" is a hard argument to make given where I'm most active.

  Being "established" is not a criterion for notability as far as musicians go. See WP:NBAND and actually read it instead of cherry-picking straw men. The article doesn't demonstrate which, if any, prongs there are satisfied, in part because the sourcing is so shoddy and you clearly have no interest in trying to bring it up to par, else you would have by this point.

  [T]he subject [has not] mentioned any promotional commentary in the article is, once again, a wholly wrong assumption that promotion on Wikipedia takes the form of "This guy is GREAT" or "Be a honey. Buy Buzz Soap." The overwhelming majority of promotion I see on a daily basis is more akin to throwing cooked spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks, which is what I see here. Again, the sourcing being horriffically subpar does not help.

  But its been stripped down along side prejudice, reprimand, false accusations, hostility and insult. I notice that you aren't actually engaging with the salient points of the arguments myself or others have made, instead resorting to ad hominem attacks and tilting at straw men. And frankly, it hasn't been "stripped down"; if it were there'd be no unsourced claims remaining.

  The article has merit it is not a fabrication, the subject is a true life established original independent regional artist[...] Whether or not the guy exists is completely irrelevant. This is an argument I see a lot, and the point is generally made to the person that existence is not an inclusion criterion. Notability is, and based upon what the people making delete arguments here are saying, that has not been met in any capacity thus far because the sourcing is bad.

  Legitimate sources are there to support the facts we just gotta dig. Then start digging in libraries and archives. Google returns literally nothing usable (string: "peter betan"). If there are any usable sources, they're in print media. The onus for sourcing lies with those who seek to retain/expand content, not the ones seeking to remove it. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF STATEMENT BY CONTRIBUTOR OF ARTICLE "PETER BETAN" MADE BY "DOOMSDAYER"What was meant directly by "The article has had and continues to have major visibility on the internet"( which "doomsday" has overwhelmingly incorrectly interpreted) is when you search the subjects name (Peter Betan) in whichever search engine one uses, the wikipedia article "Peter Betan" is the first or second prominently visible link. My statement was NOT based on the amount of readers or stats regarding how many people actually read it or visited the article. Rather, the prominence or presence it has when you search the subjects name "Peter Betan". You sir... are wrong. betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo ( talk • contribs) 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  That's a consequence of Google giving Wikipedia very disproportionate representation, and has nothing to do with this article specifically. And clearly it hasn't done much given those pageview metrics. And, once again, this argument's an admission that the intent of this page is advertizing. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

And just because the WP article comes up first second in a Google search, that is not evidence that lots of people (or anyone at all) perform that search. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 23:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

It doesn't even do that; it's second in the search results. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

And even if anyone does perform that search, that is also not evidence that they do so because Betan is a notable musician. That's what this argument is still about, despite Betinfo's diversions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 23:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply