Talk:Anthony Fantano/Archive 1

Archive 1

is this page overly-long?

yes fantano has a cult following but is a section on his meme album really necessary? it got marginal press coverage and it is literally a meme. give me a break — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.205.122 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say that mentioning the album could be justified, but the track listing is way too extensive for a single (albeit in depth) joke in one episode. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The "is Cal Chuchesta Anthony Fantano" question

There needs to be a citation that confirms that Cal Chuchesta is, as previously claimed, a character played by Anthony Fantano. They are roommates, and linking to the YouTube channel isn't proof that Cal isn't Cal and that Anthony plays Cal. You need solid evidence before removing the Citation Needed box and claiming that it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.99.66 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's literally just Anthony wearing a fake mustache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.122.200 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

We're forced to play stupid because there's literally no source out there saying Cal is Anthony. They either call them roommates as tongue-in-cheek or don't mention it at all. Is this really a claim that needs a source for? That's just overly-pendantic. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Though this discussion is old, let it be resolved that this source confirms Cal as Fantano's alter ego. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Commercial?

Anthony has repeatedly stated that this is his full time job. I'm gonna change that if no-one minds. 60.234.91.55 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit over the top

ATTENTION: This page needs a hairCUT, can you help?

This is plain embarrassing. Early days? Career? Mock album track list? Too much unnecessary information for some random Youtuber.

If the guy himself is a journalist he knows there's no way he should be taken as encyclopedic knowledge, I mean, please; let alone the amount of coverage this page has to offer about him. There are lots of high-demand articles in need of improvement, why are Wikipedist wasting their time in here? Yes, it's kind of successful, so what? Let's take @nigahiga. 19 MILLION followers and his page is half (or less) the size of this one. I forgive that guy Pewdiepie because, even if he hasn't done anything quite significant, the amount of press coverage and some minor success give him some merit.

Reconsider this, please. This just make Wikipedia look like a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.252.173.155 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The information is well-sourced. If you are so inclined to cut it down, why don't you do it? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No, the more information on a page the better. We are trying to improve Wikipedia, not detract information from it. If you believe pages should be longer than this one, add to those pages.

Also, like it or not, he's not a "random Youtuber". He's arguably the most influential music critic in media at the moment, so I wouldn't call having a long page on him "embarrassing". Brown8998 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This guy created a youtube video trying to get his fans to push for him on Wikipedia. 50.47.134.240 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Video mentioned above is a response to a discussion over his inclusion in reviews for albums, in the description he says it is him addressing it and not sending his viewership to push for him. If it was him having his fans push for him it would make more sense for the video to be published on theneedledrop channel the one with a higher viewership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmakelly (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of material

I just made a huge edit and now see a similar reasoning for why I did has been discussed here, so I thought to explain it. I thought the Chuchesta section and album subsection to be unnecessary for what was a single, in depth joke (which I see is also a point that was raised in this discussion about a year and a half ago), especially with Cal and the album being mentioned in a couple sentences earlier in the article under the 'The Needle Drop' section, which I felt was more fitting. Additionally, I removed the Classic Album section as I did not feel it was 'encyclopedic' information and, in my eyes, was seemingly just adding more unneeded information. If these removals were made in error by me feel free to undo it, but in my eyes, the page seemed to be getting unnecessarily expansive. NotAdamKovic (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Year-end lists...

Should we keep them or drop them from the article? LouisVuittonDevil17 (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think not. Not many other music critics are allowed such excesses, and anyhow Anthony's picks are easily accessible from the ext links; and I get the feeling their presence upsets and adds to why he is not allowed as a RS. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This article should not be hosting excessive material that can be found on the Needle Drop website. For the most part, we should be summarizing WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary ones. I support the recent removal by Ceoil. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet. Re the further attempts to add year-end and such like lists - as I said above I find this stuff unnecessary when a link would do. For the record, I have a lot of admiration for Fantano and think he is a very articulate, informed and astute critic; about sound, lyrical content and artistic progression, rather than hype and mystique. But these goddam lists I would oppose on any wiki article and have done so wide and far for what seems like centuries. In these cases when I see an article with such a collection of lists, I see red flags and think oh yeah u-tuber rather than oh yeah reliable source critic. We are shooting ourselves in the foot here. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No need for this Article

this guy is a random youtuber, there is no need for this article at all lol

just delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:2E35:B111:610D:DFC:8167:F761 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Blanking the page is unproductive. --Chris (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:AFDHOW, only registered users may nominate an article for deletion. And such a deletion would be speedily kept, as the topic easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Anybody nominating for deletion would be seen as disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yh I agree, I personally dislike Anthony and wish for this article to be deleted (joke) 124.150.93.233 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how youtubers do not qualify for such pages in some peoples minds, especially when Fantano is arguably the most notable music critic at the moment.There are radio stations who get less weekly listeners that have pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:9445:1A00:4DD9:629C:7D46:4905 (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It's people like this that give IP users a bad name. You blanked the article then demanded it be removed, you didn't even bother to sign your post. Wikipedia used to not allow YouTuber articles some years ago, with some notable exceptions. When there were YouTubers becoming more famous than major Hollywood actors it was clear that the "no YouTubers" policy was outdated. Whether or not you like The Needle Drop is irrelevant, he's notable enough to warrant having an article and there's been a precedent on Wikipedia for several years that these types of articles are allowed. 51.37.91.182 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your view has been tested and proven false. See this talk page archives. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The Needle Drop → Anthony Fantano – Most of the article is about Fantano yet all that information is messily under one section. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the article be Anthony Fantano with theneedledrop under that. There would need to be some reordering and small changes to lede but I think it would make the most sense. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. "The Needle Drop" brand is much more widely known than the guy's name. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the sourced content is about Fantano so I think that essentially the article is about him for the most part. The other sections are just about his rating system and a few of his notable reviews. The article doesn't go into as much depth about The Needle Drop itself so although it may be more widely known, I think the current title is a bit misleading at best. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Although I initially assumed that "The Needle Drop" was the more covered name in the sources, the titles of them list Fantano's name equally (eg. "Anthony Fantano of The Needle Drop"), which implies that there is no WP:COMMONNAME. However, I think that it would make more sense to write the article about Fantano himself, so I support this move. Lazz_R 19:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Using Anthony Fantano as a music review

I've noticed an edit done on Post Malone's Beerbongs & Bentleys, and the edit puts Anthony Fantano as a music review. Should we incorporate him as a music reviwer (in my opinion, in some way yes), or do we remove him from music reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MunRis (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't use Fantano for reviews so it should be removed. See the entry for him at WP:ALBUMAVOID. Btw you can sign your comments with four tildes (~). Alduin2000 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No mention of his other controversial channel/views

No mention of his 'thatistheplan' channel, or his guest hosting Sargon of Akkad. I mean it all is history but it was and still is very newsworthy. Google Anthony Fantano Altright and you get articles from Fader (who broke the story in 2017), AVClub, digitalmusicnews, a huge reddit thread, nme and more -143.112.32.4 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a section about the Fader controversy, it must have been removed during vandalism because I can remember it being in the article at some point. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Rather underwhelming. There’s a deleted tweet cited as a source, for crying out loud. We also have YouTube video’s, puff-pieces in obscure publications and sources that do not even mention the guy. This makes our article, basically a puff-piece, unworthy of an encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I dont think so. Other sources are wired, NYT, Spin, etc, publications which mind you have an interest in not publicizing him. Its a matter of fact that Fantano is highly influential and has huge reach into alternative culture. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted an edit without thinking that the twitter links are broken.🧍‍♂️⭕⭕ (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we also get a source on his being a journalist and critic? His YouTubing and vlogging career is readily available, but I've never seen any journalism by him in any publications.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AnthonyFantano2016.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Notable Reviews

This article should make some mention his most notable reviews (i.e a list of his 10/10 albums) 72.138.106.50 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

any reference to his 10/10 ratings?

I was hoping to see his highest-reviewed albums here (his 10/10, maybe even notable 9/10s) Xueyanmu (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Xueyanmu: Refer to this one, already created by a redditor, though not up to date.--MASHAUNIX 22:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the deal?

@Thebigbennke: Are you being serious or not. I don't have all day and this edit war need to end. Instead of calling me a troll for no reason either stop the disruptive editing or explain why you are doing this. Bowling is life (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: (Personal attack removed)

So you aren't serious. You are just here to vandalize and rely on personal attacks. Good to know. Bowling is life (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I know...

That Anthony Fantano is not considered a reliable source because he is self published, but this brings me a lot of concerns, first is how wikipedia mantains its encyclopedia style even though it is something that has grown beside (and beyond) it (it is an online knowledge encyclopedia, damn) and there is more to the kind of ideological side which I can't even touch because of how long that would be even to put the basis, but even admitting its policies as truth isn't kind of strange that there is a mention here by Robert Christgau, just because he is Robert Christgau, if you read the article referenced you could note that he hasn't watched a single Needledrop video and is just giving his opinion as it is, a personal opinion of someone which its content he doesn't really know, but that is given as something worth adding to an article which feels kind of strange because the opinion of Robert isn't that different of what you can see in some random comment of Fantano's video, but is given the editorial importance because of the person it is coming from, what I'm saying is this article seems lackluster for the kind of person it is giving encyclopedic information about, this isn't the first time wikipedia has added something that is factually wrong/irrelevant as a source, but I feel concerned of how normal this is because of internal policies, if wikipedia purpose is to keep an archive of knowledge and truth, doesn't this kind of things kind of self.defeat it's purpose on the first place?

Taking Fantano's article as an example but I feel this is something bigger and sorry, I don't have the energy or patience to tackle it big scale, but is something I have seen a lot in this place Whatsupwiththis (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)