Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairnie

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 kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairnie

Fails WP:BIO with either 799 or 78 google results. Fails WP:V with ²/₃ of references based from lycos free pages. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)}

• Strong keep This seems like a classic misapplication of the google test, which is not very useful for people who did most of their work before pre-internet. Even if he fails BIO (I haven't really looked into it), the article asserts enough notability which is verifiable from reliable sources like this one that I think he has enough notability to keep. This page needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted. I'm willing to do some rewriting if the AfD closes keep.--Kchase T 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep I support your arguments (and not only because I originally authored the piece!...). Steve Fairnie only played a bit-part in the history of music (and art), but his contribution had a huge effect on those whose path he crossed. U2 are the most notable example, but there are literally hundreds of others. His presence on the web has been slow to gain ground precisely because much of what he achieved was in the dark ages before Google, Wikipedia et al., but his legacy lives on, and I believe a Wikipedia entry would be appropriate. Thank you for your support, and I would gladly welcome rewriting in order to adhere more stringently to the Wikipedia thang!--User:Tjpike
  • Note: author is new to Wikipedia, please be gentle. Phr (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite and add cites Article is excessively devotional and not verifiable per WP:V. It needs to be rewritten with neutral phrasing and verifiable external cites. The article should also be shorter in my opinion, given Fairnie's obscurity. Also, try to follow Wikipedia style (WP:MOS) about fonts, picture placement, etc, so the article visually looks like other Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gallery); the current layout may look good outside the encyclopedia context, but the way it stands out in Wikipedia is probably what attracted the deletion nomination.

  I just left you a welcome message with a bunch of links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; please take a look at them. But I think your remark that Fairnie "only played a bit-part in the history of music (and art)" explains why this article is probably not encyclopedic. If you can document Fairnie's influence on U2, your best bet would be to mention that in the U2 article. You may have to go to the library to research suitable cites in printed sources--internet searches don't work so well for artists from this long ago. Anyway, don't get discouraged, do keep contributing, just try to get the hang of what kinds of articles fit into Wikipedia. Phr (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote changed to conditional keep. The rewrite is more encyclopedic but documentation is still skimpy. I did a quick search of several news and periodical databases (through public library) and couldn't find anything, which is a bit worrisome. However, nothing obviously controversial is being claimed. Subject matter is suitable for encyclopedia if the claims check out. Phr (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep based on most recent additional sourcing. Phr (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those words of advice, which have made me more conscious of what is required and what is the "norm" on Wikipedia. I'll do my best to make the necessary amendments! --User:Tjpike

• Is this getting any better?... I've taken your feedback on board on radically revised the page (which, incidentally, should be labelled 'Steve Fairnie', not 'Fairnie'... all part of the learning process). Let me know whether I'm any closer to the Wikipedia scheme of things in terms of presentation. As to whether he meets the notability grade, checking out the musician notability guidelines, I personally think he's in with a shout despite the aforementioned 'bit-part' aspect... perhaps 'essential cameo' would have been a better description! Yours, only too willing to learn! Tjpike 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, much better. Please add as much documentation as you can. The cites really do make the article stronger, which I think you would want regardless. You can rename the page with the "move page" tab (actually you may not have that tab yet, new editors don't get the tab for a few weeks to slow down vandalism, but you can ask someone else to move the page). Probably better to avoid confusion by not moving it til after the AfD closes. Phr (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Further: I see now, some of the references given do document claims in the article. For example, the Willie Williams interview describes the U2 connection. But the references aren't connected closely enough to the article, so when the article says "Fairnie influenced U2" it makes me say "where's that documented?" since there's no immediate connection to the interview. The way to fix that is by adding footnotes, so next to the U2 mention, you'd immediately have a link pointing to a footnote that cites the interview. See Help:Footnotes for how to do this. Phr (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll add footnotes - I understand the logic in that. Can it also be useful to add direct quotes? (e.g. from his obituary in The Independent (10/03/93) , or various Melody Maker / NME reviews) Also, should record label information be included, or the fact that 'Hype' was among the first releases on Virgin Games, or the Robert Lax publication references? I think so much pedantic information wouldn't be necessary for a major league artist, but perhaps it's necessary here in the interest of accuracy and credibility?... Please advise. Tjpike 06:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes of course you can use direct quotes, just keep them reasonably short, to not get in copyright trouble. As for the other stuff, it's pretty flexible, I'd say just find some comparable biographies and do what they do. Actually the more major artists have MORE detailed info, depending on how much work the article's editors were willing to do. For example, look at Phil Collins, which is a featured article (i.e. designated as one of the best articles on Wikipedia). See WP:FA#Music for a list of other music-related FA's. Again, spend some time exploring the links in the welcome message for various kinds of advice about how to research and write good articles. WP:TPA sums it up. Phr (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for all the tips. I've been very pleasantly surprised at how active things are behind the scenes here and how helpful you've been! I've continued to edit the piece, and hope I'm getting if not "there", at least a little closer! I hope I haven't gone overboard on the references, and I'm not quite sure how to word them properly. I look forward to the next wave of feedback! All the best Tjpike 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad to help, and glad the article is shaping up. Further discussion should be on the article's talk page; an AfD is not the right place for this kind of conversation. Phr (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: interesting subject with plenty of references. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:17, 24 July 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.