Talk:Matt Tilley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed Unsourced Materials

Much of this page was unsourced and contained spurious information. I have done my best to remove most of it, though it remains a very poorly sourced page. --VicLib12 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS A DISGRACE

why is there so much on such an insignificant person? he is worse than kochie. --203.16.24.170 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NOMINATION FOR DELETION - This guy should not be on wikipedia

He is totally irrelevent. Small-time radio hosts from around the world have no place in an encyclopedia, no matter how comprehensive. This guy is known in 1 city of about 1 million people. Totally irrelevent. I would delete it but I am not sure non-registered ppl can. Nick 7 September 2006

I totally agree, there is no way this person would ever concievably be in a encyclopedia unless he hijacked a plane or something - - - - he is a nobody.
Mike 7/9/06 20:45EST

This article should NOT be deleted. There are a huge number of articles on Wikipedia of people who are less famous than Matt. He is very well know in Melbourne and across Australia due to his prank call CD's and his show being joined to the Austereo network. Lakeyboy 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say i agree with Nick and Mike. I was looking someone else up on wikipedia and could not believe that this moron was on wikipedia. In any case, the entry read like a fricken press-release for him. If it is to stay then it shouldn't be more than his name and his job. It certainly shouldn't contain promotional material for his cds. Keep this stuff on your fan-site Lakeyboy, noone wants to see wikipedia become a fansite where 16 year olds worship their "idols". This ameoba of a man is certainly NOT very well known in Australia NOR in Melbourne... Only people who listen to his show would know who he is. And NO ONE CARES if he is happily married. Andrew12 14 September 2006

I have never said I was a fan, I don't even listen to the FOX in the mornings. To the point, he is a well known comedian especially in Melbourne and around Australia. I'm going to follow all this up with admins. Lakeyboy 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion, but let's cut out the insults, shall we? For what it's worth, I don't listen to Fox, and don't know anything about Matt Tilley, but I have heard of him, if that means anything. Perhaps that is just from Fox's ads on TV, so perhaps that doesn't mean much either. But Melbourne is not a city of one million people, but a city of 3.7 million people. Does that mean that he is 3.7 times more important than Nick thought? If not, what was his point in mentioning the population figure?

The tactic of the two objectors seems to be to run the person down, rather than put forward a reasoned case. Perhaps they have a personal dislike of Matt Tilley? Regardless, I would be more convinced by a reasoned case than simply denigrating the person. Why did I mentioned two objectors? Because 'Nick' and 'Andrew12' both have the same IP address. Hmmm.
Philip J. Rayment 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no reason to delete the article - Matt Tilley is quite well known in Melbourne, and known by many around Australia. He has a radio programme and a chart listed CD. How much do you want!? --Evan C (Talk) 07:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have placed my response below. Also, I would be surprised if Lakeyboy and Evan C are not the same person. There are not many 16 year old tram nerds in melbourne I don't think. Either that or there is two too many. Mike 21:47 14 September 2006

If you care to look at our histories, you'll see that Lakeyboy and I are clearly not the same person - we have collaborated a number of Wikipedia tasks - not something one person tends to do with himself! As for the number of "16 year old tram nerds" in Melbourne, I think you'll find that Railpage is full of them. --Evan C (Talk) 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Revertion

Do you have any sense of irony Phillip J Raymond? You argue "I would be more convinced by a reasoned case than simply denigrating the person" before uttering the words "Just how old are you, Nick/Andrew12". Useless insults and arguments aside, this article reads like a promotional article.

Population figures act to show just how irrelevent Matt Tilley is. A quick look at the ARIA website shows that a Gold accreditation (which Tilley's CD wondrously achieved) equates to 35,000 copies sold. In a city population of 3.17 million people where Tilley is apparently so wildly popular, you would think he may have had sales at a rate higher than 1.5%. If he is known outside of Melbourne, which I highly doubt, then this sales rate drops to the region of 0.02%. Worldwide = 0.0005%

If you decide that one of your own winning an argument is more important than the credibility of Wikipedia and the page stays then well done, but at least edit out the fluff... Here are some problems:

The link to The Great Race doesn't even link to his show - it was axed after a few weeks - but rather links to a respected and totally unrelated movie. I have googled the show and there is seemingly no trace of it at all.

The FAMOUS comedian Robin Williams is renowned for his impersonations (as Tilley "fans" would argue he is). No one would think to list them on his page, so why are Matt Tilley's listed here? Are they here as "filler"? If so, then they need to go. Similarly, I am sure I am not the only one wondering what the reference to the unknown Jamie Angel is there for?

His "involvement" with the station for 16 years is irrelevent at best. I worked at a pub for a year... thats right, no one cares!

Is the fact he is "happily married" really worthy of being in an encyclopedia?

"Plans are in place for a 2nd volume to be released towards the end of 2006" - this sounds suspiciously like it has come from his agent. Where is the source? If there isn't one then get rid of it.

His CD cover shouldn't be in here, Wikipedia is not the place for free advertising.

At best Tilley's page has been whipped up by a gushing fan. At worst it has come from his PR agent. I am cynical enough to feel the latter is more likely.

Regardless of what you think of me, you shouldn't be letting people clog wikipedia with crap like this - it destroys any credibility this website once had. Mike 21:47 14 September 2006

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it has information about things considered too insignificant for "mainstream" encyclopedias. Just because you've never heard of Matt Tilley or have some sort of vendetta against him doesn't warrant this article's removal. I'm no fan of Tilley - I don't even find him particularly funny, but he is significant enough to make this article worthwhile. However difficult it may be, at least attempt to properly justify this proposal.

By the way, please sign your posts properly - using four tildes (~~~~), so it's possible to track your replies. Consider registering an account. --Evan C (Talk) 13:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sense of irony Phillip J Raymond? You argue "I would be more convinced by a reasoned case than simply denigrating the person" before uttering the words "Just how old are you, Nick/Andrew12".

Yeah, rather ironic, wasn't it? There was a non-obvious reason for that, actually, as I thought he was the same person I've seen on another forum, where the 12 was apparently how old he was. But checking, I must have confused the username with someone else, so I've removed that comment now.

But I'll back up Evan C's comment about enthusiasts; there would be a lot more than you seem to be aware of, and your comment about there being two too many is hardly appropriate either. I'm not one, but only by virtue of age, not interest.

And by the way, you didn't even manage to spell my name correctly. But at least you did provide some well-argued reasons against the article. I'm still not changing my opinion, though, because I didn't have one to start with.
Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So then edit the rubbish out. I won't because it will just get reverted back by the Nazi Tilley groupies. Mike 12:10, 15 September 2006 EST

When I said that you did provide some well-argued reasons, I wasn't meaning to indicate that they were necessarily totally convincing. However, rereading your post, I do agree that there are at least a few things that unquestionably should be altered, so I have removed the link to the Great Race, removed reference to his marriage being happy, and asked for a citation of his future album. This is not to indicate that I think the rest is okay; I've maintained all along that I don't really have an opinion on whether the article is warranted or not, and from that it follows that I'm not prepared to say whether some of the details are warranted or not. But a subjective comment on the state of his marriage is not appropriate, and neither is an invalid link, so I'm prepared to make those changes at least. And I also doubt that anyone would have reverted you if you had made just those edits; it was the almost-total deletion of the content without getting consensus first that was going too far. Philip J. Rayment 15:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG... creationist Mike 12:54 September 15 2006

Which has what to do with this article? Philip J. Rayment 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous situation.

Tilley is such a nobody, that we cannot safely assume anything about him. We ALL know that Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister of the UK, THAT doesn't need a source. On the other hand, Matt Tilley is not well known in any capacity, and all the drivel in this article, if it is to remain, needs to be sourced. How do we know that he has been with FoxFM for 16 years? Anyone could be making that up. Source it. You are being vandals. --202.164.195.56 13:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more and more ridiculous it seems. How can we have information in Wikipedia (AN ENCYCLOPEDIA) which shows no sign of research.

How do we know that Tilley has been at Fox for 16 years? Because its in Wikipedia????

How do we know he studied law? There is no proof anywhere of this... unless... well unless you count Wikipedia as the source. Do you see how moronic this is.

How do we know his CD rated at number 1 for several weeks?

Anything could be written in this article and you are presuming that it is true. What is the problem with providing sources.

You are acting like 16 year old children.

--202.164.195.56 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the most appropriate thing to do in this situation is to place the Template:Unreferenced template at the top of the page. Each sentence does not need a Template:fact template - that's just silly. If you feel so strongly about this, nuke the article down to a stub and move the stuff here for working on. Be WP:CIVIL and think about things, please. --Evan C (Talk) 13:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

stuff to be sourced

Tilley began his career as a stand-up comedian after studying law, but is best-known for his antics on FOX FM's Matt and Jo Show, with Jo Stanley. He previously worked with Tracy Bartram on the same weekday morning breakfast program. He has been involved with the station for over sixteen years.

In 2005, Tilley released the "Gotcha!" CD entitled Cereal Pest, a collection of prank phone calls he made while on air at FOX FM. It rated highly in the ARIA charts, scoring the number 1 spot on the Victoria/Tasmania Album Chart for several weeks. They are releasing another version on October 21 2006.

This is getting way too far out of hand

People are using the excuse of citing every miniscule detail to try and eventually wither away this article to nothing. I have never seen this happen in other articles. Just because you may prefer other breakfast shows or are a member of an anti-matt tilley group doesn't mean you get to ruin a good aricle and forcing it to never get any better. Some sort of intervention needs to come into order here. Like placing the article to be partially locked so only established wikipedia members can edit. --Lakeyboy 00:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately LakeyBOY, most of this article was either unsubstantiated or POV. You know the rules boy, obey them. I had a look at a lot of the train station articles you have edited... seems a lot of them have no sources at all. That is a little risky. --202.164.195.56 05:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

--Mike121212 08:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

What specifically do you want a third opinion about? You should source this (and every!) article with reliable sources to allow verification, but that doesn't mean every sentence needs its own footnote. Doesn't FOX FM have a bio of him that you can cite? I don't think you need a citation for his CD publication unless that is disputed for some odd reason (and iTunes isn't a good source anyway). Where did you get the info about him studying law, for instance? I don't know anything about this guy, but from the current text, I do wonder if he's notable enough to warrant his own article. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this article doesn't quite meet the requirements of WP:NOT. I suggest nominating it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see what consensus is achieved. -Amatulic 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact he should have his own article that I am interested in. It is the content that is suitable for the article. My version or the IP address fellows version. --Lakeyboy 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have just greatly improved the article with numerous new sources and information that I hope pleases everybody and we can put this whole issue to rest. --Lakeyboy 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also just found another fantastic source of information I may include in the article at some point. http://www.icmi.com.au/speakerfull.phtml?id=855. --Lakeyboy 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That ICMI link alone seems to justify the article's existance. --Evan C (Talk) 04:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting logic Evan, you do know that is a company that represents Matt Tilley as a speaker? Fairly ludicrous suggestion Evan. I doubt a company acting as agent for Matt Tilley is going to give an unbiased representation which could be referenced here. --202.164.195.56 08:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindly read the page. If you had, it would've been clear what I meant. --Evan C (Talk) 08:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Evan... kindly look at the page in context, then it will be clear what I meant.--Mike121212 08:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In context is exactly how I read it. On the other hand, I read it with an open mind and no pointless presumptions of inaccuracy, so I can understand how we read it differently. --Evan C (Talk) 08:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"pointless presumptions of inaccuracy"

This kind of comment is not acceptable - see WP:NPA. --Mike121212 09:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but so is (presumably) your calling Evan's statement "ludicrous suggestion." --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I stand by my reference to Evan's comment as a "ludicrous suggestion". It is a ludicrous suggestion to think that the existence of someone's resume on their agent's webpage would justify the existence of a wiki page on them. On the other hand, Evan made an unqualified presumption about me when he suggested I go to pages with "pointless presumptions of inaccuracy". Whatever he may think of me, Evan has no knowledge of how I approach sources, so the comment was provocative and rude. My comment was based on the existence of a fact. --Mike121212 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the substance of your point that I was suggesting was uncivil but the manner in which you expressed it. "Ludicrous" is certainly a derisive term. --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [fixed misquoted word] 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would "completely nonsensical suggestion" have been less derisive? I am not sure what else I could have said... Evan's comment was beyond the normal realms of everyday stupidity, I am not sure how to express that without being derisive. --Mike121212 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Omit the sentence that contains the word "ludicrous", and you have the same content without the harshness. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)