Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Wilson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus. Yanksox 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brent Wilson
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE Tulkolahten 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fails how? Is clearly subject of at least 2 non-trivial publications and part of a notable band per WP:NMG. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Tulkolahten 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable as a member of a notable band. User:All systems go removed the AfD notice. I restored it just now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Panic! at the Disco or simply Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC on his own (and no, individual members of a notable band are not inherently notable). Possibly worth recreating when/if he wins his lawsuit against his former band, and manages to establish that he actually played on an album. :) Xtifr tälk 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Is it your opinion that members of a notable band are not inherently notable themselves, or is it policy somewhere?--Dmz5 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- See WP:MUSIC. Nothing there says that a member of a notable band is inherently notable! My opinion is that most members of notable bands would be notable themselves for having participated in a band's notable accomplishments. That goes beyond what the guideline actually says, but I think it's a reasonable interpretation, and a good compromise between deletionist and inclusionist stances. However, in this case, we have a musician who, according to the band, did not participate in any of their albums or singles. Xtifr tälk 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is it your opinion that members of a notable band are not inherently notable themselves, or is it policy somewhere?--Dmz5 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge per nom. TJ Spyke 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The MTV and Spin Magazine articles about him demonstrate individual notability. --Oakshade 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Except that the articles aren't about him; they're about the lawsuit, which is notable because it involves a notable band. Suing a famous person does not magically confer notability. (Especially not in the lawsuit-happy land of the USA.) Now, if he wins the suit, then he may become notable as someone who had to sue to get properly credited on a successful album. But if he loses, then I think that will constitute strong evidence that he never actually did anything notable! Xtifr tälk 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly, this is coverage about him and his lawsuit. Clearly non-trivial coverage (not directory or listing of performance dates, etc). If he wins or loses the lawsuit is completely irrelevant as he already has established notability --Oakshade 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Except that the articles aren't about him; they're about the lawsuit, which is notable because it involves a notable band. Suing a famous person does not magically confer notability. (Especially not in the lawsuit-happy land of the USA.) Now, if he wins the suit, then he may become notable as someone who had to sue to get properly credited on a successful album. But if he loses, then I think that will constitute strong evidence that he never actually did anything notable! Xtifr tälk 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sharkface217 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as member of a notable band and subject of several non-trivial publications. If people doubt the need to have a separate article, it can be merged too. No need to delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MGM. — Seadog (Talk) 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Given this article's deletion history as well as the lack of actual notability, I think the contents should be merged into other articles and the article promptly deleted afterwards. Xiner 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Not enough, but certainly is something. A guy who is sueing for recognition for his playing on a an album by a notable band is a few degrees of seperation. The information is useful to Wikipedia but not here. •Elomis• 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge per above. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Looking at the outside source... they don't talk about him, they talk about his breakup with the band, not the guy himself. WP:NOTE failed I believe. The lawsuit deals with the same stuff, the info is correct according to the sources, but its just not woth note eitherway. MrMacMan 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talking about "his breakup with the band" is in fact talking about him. --Oakshade 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- And yet I don't think breaking up with a band is reason enough to have an article about him. Also the comment that 'Brent is ...forming a band ... with his brother' is cited... but when i look at the citation i don't see one word about this potential band. Outside the scope of this one band he has nothing, and since even his input in the band is questioned this is hard to argue. MrMacMan 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- He's already notable, even if there's no mention of forming another band. --Oakshade 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. I don't see the 20+ members of the Polyphonic_spree getting their own entries despite several founding members having a band previously. Is it an extreme example? I really don't think so. In fact the Panic! at the Disco article mentions him and his current situation in two paragraphs is and should be enough. MrMacMan 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- He's already notable, even if there's no mention of forming another band. --Oakshade 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- And yet I don't think breaking up with a band is reason enough to have an article about him. Also the comment that 'Brent is ...forming a band ... with his brother' is cited... but when i look at the citation i don't see one word about this potential band. Outside the scope of this one band he has nothing, and since even his input in the band is questioned this is hard to argue. MrMacMan 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talking about "his breakup with the band" is in fact talking about him. --Oakshade 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nonnotable Mukadderat 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable in his own right. WMMartin 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Members of P!ATD have been tryed to be deleted in the past, and the articles were kept. --DieHard2k5 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge. Non-notable by himself; information could be merged into the band's article. Fairsing 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
