Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Teene

Not notable. Even tho' according to the article, "Terry Teene wrote and performed the song Pussy Galore for the James Bond thriller Octopussy...and literally hundreds of other songs...Though Terry Teene has recorded more songs than Madonna...", neither IMDB nor allmusic.com know anyone named "terry teene", "terry knutsen", "terence knutsen", or "terry knutson". allmusic credits other artists for the song "Pussy Galore meets Bond". One google hit for "ToBo the clown"--a username in a public message forum. Of the 21 displayed hits for Clownzo (most are for "Interdimensional Clownz, by T. L. Winslow. Explore the parallel dimension of Clownzo..."--unrelated) the only ones about this guy are VfD (#1 hit--his name was mentioned in the Glenn Nolastname discussion), and some 1992 articles about his being 'convicted on six counts related to his messy house and property'. ""Curse of the Hearse" only gets 114 hits, #1 of which is on a website titled "SCBD The Chart of the Flops", which makes me think it's not very notable. This article seems to border on vandalfiction (or whatever the common term is), altho', in fairness, I have to mention that the contributor has also added a great deal of interesting info that appears to be accurate in some previously under-covered areas such as boomerangs and people associated with the Grateful Dead. Regardless, one little-heard of single, and some minor convictions, I don't think add up to notablity. Niteowlneils 02:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, unless the author or someone else can verify the statement that "Terry Teene wrote and performed the song Pussy Galore for the James Bond thriller Octopussy". If it can't be verified, the article is unreliable and should be deleted. To the best of my recollection, Pussy Galore is a character in Goldfinger, not Octopussy. I don't recall any song about Pussy Galore in Goldfinger. No song by that title is listed on Amazon's track listing for the Octopussy soundtrack. Google searches on "Terry Teene" "Pussy Galore" and "Terry Teene" "Octopussy" yield no hits. By comparison, "Shirley Bassey" Goldfinger" by comparison yields 13,800 hits. Something's wrong here. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: A very compelling VfD nomination with a striking indictment of the article. It seems pretty much like a spoof. Geogre 04:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I've also blanked the page. Having obvious hoaxes freely visible doesn't do much for our credibility. Ambi 13:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Beware. This article has several linking to it, and User:Pedant has made many changes to those articles. These changes may also be false information. Clown, Stage name, Ronald McDonald, Dr. Demento, Glenn, Clownzo, George Voorhees. It's not good to have blank articles lying about, so I'm making it a redirect to Hoax until we delete it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 14:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. After Chameleon's post, I've been doing a bit of digging, and I'm beginning to suspect this guy might be one of the more clever vandals we've seen. He's added this, and George Voorhees (which I've speedy deleted as another, worse, hoax). Yet he's also made a mix of obviously bad and obviously good contributions, on top of this clear vandalism. Ambi 14:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment That's two articles you've deleted unilaterally there Ambi. How on Earth am I supposed to make a decision if I can't see the supposed problem? Bad, bad Ambi. Let Vfd do its work. The Steve 19:08, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

People have tried to substantiate the articles? How? Using google? The very nature of these folk is that they are somewhat obscure...

ever seen a photograph of Bozo the Clown out of his makeup? NO! you have not, because Bozo, being a syndicated character, does not exist without his makeup. Whatdoes Bozo mean? Can you find that out on the net? Not until it's put there.

Why is "monicker" the preferred clown spelling of moniker?

How do you confirm that?

What is the code of non-infringement?... well pretty much what it sounds like, but what does that mean to a clown?

Why is a clown alley an alley? What is the significance, in terms of status, of being 'on the door' of the alley - to a clown?

Who goes first in the clown car?

the answers to all of these questions arealmost universally known (and important) to clowns, yet almost unavailable to the layman. The answers might not be on the net, but there are answers, and they are verifiable and they areof significance culturally, worldwide, as EVERY culture has some version of the 'clown'

Say YOU were writing an article on the subject, where would you research it? Not on the net, yet in any country of the world there are experts available who could quickly accurately and unambiguously answer those questions, I am one of those people.I can referyou to other, if necessary.

Want to substantiate who was the first live and first tv, ronald mcdonald?

not on the net, and not from mcdonalds, they are very secretive about it, as they have been involved in messy lawsuits about it... including one with george Voorhees that even he can't discuss, but which resultedin an injuntion preventing him from using the character or likeness. It's public record though,someoneableenough to go to the court housecould buy a copy for 6 dollars once they knew the titleof the case... I don't so I didn't mention it,,,

but you can contact willard scott, he will tell you he was the first television ronald mcdonald this can be verified from an archived copy of the mcdonalds website, which I posted alink to, which Icould find if you hadn't deletedit.

and from the 3 ads themselves, which I will happily post if I can get permission. or can email to you if you are interested.

You can note that on the first ad, A child states,"you really are ronald mcdonald!"

Ronald is already a known character before the ad! the first ad!

How? digging further, you find a picture of "Ronald Mcdonald (George Voorhees)entertains his fans at the Grand Opening of a localMcDonald's restaurant"

Why isn't this on mcdonald's site? they have a corporate interest in ronald , and want a younger clown with a more clean cut appearance, the original 2 versions ronald were a little bit 'old' and a little bit 'icky' looking by TV advertising standards of today.

I've seen the costume, saw the newspaper clipping, this is not original research it is a compilation, the willard scott material, at one time, was on the net but apparently you can barely even say McDonald's without cease and desist orders from on high, no matter where you are hosted, so maybe it's not there.

but really? is the wikipedia supposed to be a repository of information of encyclopedic nature? or only things that anyone can find on the web? if the latter is the case, why a wiki at all?

and I have seenshort-lived websites with the geo.voorhees stuff,but I personally haveseen the costume and interviewed both terry teene(who has nevereven tasted beer, he's so moral) and george, additionally there were hundreds of unavailable witnesses.

if it has to be verifiable on the net,then delete Art Carbecause you won'tfind Guitcycle, Eelvisa, or Nevada Car on the net... you won't get a quote from the owner of any of these cars...

What is the World Record longest time in the Fast Catch event in boomeranging? Not on the net,it would take good research just to find that one at all...unless you hadadozen eyewitnesses who all would eagerly tell you the drama a man with two throwing sticks can create in one minute,eightpoint nine seconds, in an event that is supposed to be over in well under 20 seconds. Find that on google.And yetthatrecord has heldandwilllikely hold a long time. 12 years so far.

If its a matterof it being false, well, actually it's true, everything I posted, except one glaring error (goldfinger was the movie, not octopussy, the one Terry Teene wrote pussy galore for (wasn't in the movie,but it's on vinyl)(personally, I'd be quite happy not to see that on wikipedia, I was just transcribing stuff wholesale from my notes. Actually I'd be happy if I never see that word again unless there are are mammals of the species felis involved)

if it is a matter of not being notable, well,it IS, you noted it...

if it is a matter of it not being written well or bad POV, well wiki up, it's open source, my new friend,

if it's just unwelcome material, tell me why, other than 'hoax' 'vandal', patently untrue. You can quite trust that if there is anything untrue in an article I touched, it's likely becauseI haven't read that far. "Like I am still mostly just past the first paragraph of Sovereignty

if it needs to wait until it comes out in my book it will be too late, I won't live that long, and I don't think too many people are left that can tell some of these stories ... should they be lost to history?

The burden of substantiation is on people who contribute material. Many contributors, including myself, don't always substantiate things as well as we should, but when challenged it is the contributor's job to answer the challenge by supplying verifiable information. When an article gives the impression of being fishy, some VfD participants will perform some quick checks, including Googling, as a form of "due diligence" to make sure we don't delete material that is easily verifiable. If the consensus of the discussants, based on our own knowledge and a little rough-and-ready due-diligence research, is that it still looks wrong, out it goes—unless someone—the contributor or someone else—presents information that changes our mind. If you look at VfD discussions, you will see that changes in opinion as the discussion progresses are very common. The reason for the long discussion is to give time for anyone interested to bring evidence to light.

If you wish to prevent the article from being deleted, what you must do is to create a rough consensus among the participants in this discussion. It's very unlikely that you can do this by attacking judgements that have already been made based on the information at hand. The most likely way to change peoples' minds to introduce new, verifiable information.

There's nothing wrong with deleting articles that are accurate but insufficiently. The articles can always be recreated when someone takes the trouble to substantiate them. There's no rush at all on putting things into Wikipedia; we're not trying to scoop anybody.

And we are not a channel for first publication of anything. If you have wonderful material that exists only as oral history, it is not Wikipedia's job to preserve it. You must find some other way of preserving it. Then, in a few years, when we can read books about it, see that people are talking about it on Usenet, etc. if someone then writes an article about it, there will be a basis for accepting it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)