Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was No consensus, Keep. Deizio talk 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Holly (2nd nomination)

This is a strange case. I found this article in the Wikipedia namespace, and moved it, thinking that the creator made a mistake. When checking the backlinks, though, I found out that it had been deleted before. I would vote keep if that is allowed, because he appears to be an actual person, despite what the previous AfD debate said: he has three albums on amazon.com, an entry at VH1.com (for what it's worth), etc. Ardric47 00:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• The first debate is archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Holly. Ardric47 00:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up A LOT Aside from this article being diiiiiiirty, being a voter for the Grammys means nothing, as you just have to be credited on six songs, and getting "first round" nominations means nothing, because like a jillion (give or take a jillion) artists get first round noms. However, if the other information in the article and further info can be verified, then this would be as good a candidate for an article as any other. -- Kicking222 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral- seems like the first deletion may have been an error, hence no speedy as a recreation. If this guy actually is a recording artist and fulfills criteria on WP:MUSIC then I would be inclined to vote weak keep. Badgerpatrol 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability is hard to establish, and the article is really weak. Some parts of it suggest vanity or original research ("currently lives…"). I say delete now. Bucketsofg✐ 01:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems sound (excuse the pun) enough to me. I've done some cleaning up. Vanity is not a cause for deletion - only non-notability. See Vanity. Plenty of articles have the "currently lives" line. Do we really want to dispute that and remove it from the article?Tyrenius 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's still not clear to me what WP:MUSIC criteria he meets, if any. --Metropolitan90 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do websites not count as "reputable media"? Although I can see how almost all of the web hits might have been heavily influenced by Pete Holly himself (akin to vanity publishers). I will reconsider my vote if better sources don't turn up. Ardric47 04:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there multiple non-trivial works published about him on web sites? Some web sites are reputable media but others clearly do not count as such. Note that his entries on VH1.com and Allmusic.com include minimal information at most. Furthermore, the fact that his web site still makes false claims about him being nominated for multiple Grammy Awards, which is verifiably false, raises questions about the accuracy of other information he may have submitted here or elsewhere. (The "first round" does not constitute an award nomination. [1]) --Metropolitan90 05:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain about "verifiably false" for those of us not familiar with Grammy procedures. Thanks. Tyrenius 10:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about Grammy procedures per se, just how claims Pete Holly makes on his web site are the opposite of verifiable. For example, his home page says -4-GRAMMY NOMINATIONS FOR "PETE HOLLY III"- -INCLUDING ONE FOR THE VIDEO "HEART OF GOLD"-in 2006- [2] yet the official list of Grammy nominations for the most recent year never mentions him or "Heart of Gold". In other words, not only can we not verify that he was Grammy-nominated, we can verify that he wasn't. This raises questions about how accurate other published information about him may be. Adrift* suggests below that he appears notable, and maybe he meets some WP:MUSIC criterion like having a national tour, but I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt until we get some reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Metropolitan90, sounds like someone trying very hard to meet WP:MUSIC. But failing. Rockpocket (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's time for this article to face the music. Hiding in the Wikipedia namespace couldn't save it. Delete. Kimchi.sg 09:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – but more cleanup is required – Gurch 11:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced. Recording career does not look notable, involvement on the Grammys etc. probably tips him over the edge into WP:BIO land. But as stated above, there is almost nothign on which to base an artivle on the web, so anyone with access to treeware resources should join in now :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rockpocket. Not notable enough in my view. Paddles 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources cited at all, so delete as unverifiable unless good citations are provided prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rockpocket. Metamagician3000 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to JzG, I found many hits in Google. His website claims that his video is Grammy nominated (but doesn't state which year, so this is difficult to research). He has a discography, so he'd meet several criteria at WP:MUSIC. I'd say {{holdon}} until further sources can be found. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Not to disparage your points, but I'm very sure I've heard on another AfD somewhere (can't remember which article, or who said it) that it is much easier to get nominated for the Grammys than actually winning. Kimchi.sg 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or any other notability standard. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Crazynas 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears notable. His early punk band Pete Holly and the Looks was a small time garage/punk band from around the early 80s and that too seems notable. He also has a much more recent solo release listed at Allmusic.com. The article needs citation and more detail all around, but could be an interesting article especially for collectors and historians.--Adrift* 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I could see, just barely, how people could see this article as being notable.Thetruthbelow^(talk) 23:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V.--Peta 05:31, 22 May 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.