Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brodie Foster Hubbard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Proto///type 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brodie Foster Hubbard
- Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND notability guidelines. (The "three albums" are EPs, not full-length, and the label producing same do not appear to be major label/major indie.) Singer's website is MySpace. — Mike • 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Nevertheless, since you are citing notability guidelines, I would like to point out again that the artist Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media; Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city; Has won or placed in a major music competition; Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style/technique in a particular music genre; Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. There was a MySpace link on the Wikipedia article, but it has been removed. Official site is still on there, and is NOT a MySpace page (though MySpace indicates official site is under reconstruction).Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Musician's official site offers photograph and two links. One is to musician's MySpace page. One is to musician's e-mail address. — Mike • 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- response I point you again towards the phrase "under reconstruction." And since when is not liking a subject's website part of Wikipedia guidelines? Parsssseltongue 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment I felt that a MySpace profile as his website was a good metric for the notability of the individual. And kindly calm down. — Mike • 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do not edit other user's comments. Not a personal attack, and if you think so, let someone else decide that. Again, the website and the MySpace profile are two different entities, so your argument here is not valid. Discussion and disagreement does not equal not calm. Parsssseltongue 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment {{RPA}}'s in common usage on AfD and elsewhere, thanks, and kindly remain civil and stop the personal attacks. — Mike • 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- response Yes, the website and the MySpace profile are two different entities. The use of a MySpace profile as his sole website containing actual content is demonstrative of non-notability, in my opinion. Obviously, you disagree, but that's my viewpoint, at least. — Mike • 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your insistence that I am not "calm" or that I am personally attacking you does not make it more true. I am refuting your grounds for nomination and the ill logic you are using to justify deletion. Notwithstanding the fact that it is clear the site is under reconstruction (which many sites will be from time to time, whether from a notable corporation or totally non-notable entity... rendering this point useless as a sign of notability), I still have proven notability criteria in other areas. Let's both agree to let others carry on this discussion now, and end our commenting on the matter of these AfDs you have initiated. Parsssseltongue 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deal. If you'll let what you've written here stand, I'll let what I've written here stand. No hard feelings from my end. — Mike • 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your insistence that I am not "calm" or that I am personally attacking you does not make it more true. I am refuting your grounds for nomination and the ill logic you are using to justify deletion. Notwithstanding the fact that it is clear the site is under reconstruction (which many sites will be from time to time, whether from a notable corporation or totally non-notable entity... rendering this point useless as a sign of notability), I still have proven notability criteria in other areas. Let's both agree to let others carry on this discussion now, and end our commenting on the matter of these AfDs you have initiated. Parsssseltongue 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- response I point you again towards the phrase "under reconstruction." And since when is not liking a subject's website part of Wikipedia guidelines? Parsssseltongue 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment The use of the "myspace" page page may be temporary. Archieves of brodiehubbard.com show that the site has historically been used to announce shows, record releases, etc. It also shows a long term presence on the web. -MrFizyx 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Musician's official site offers photograph and two links. One is to musician's MySpace page. One is to musician's e-mail address. — Mike • 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Nevertheless, since you are citing notability guidelines, I would like to point out again that the artist Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media; Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city; Has won or placed in a major music competition; Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style/technique in a particular music genre; Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. There was a MySpace link on the Wikipedia article, but it has been removed. Official site is still on there, and is NOT a MySpace page (though MySpace indicates official site is under reconstruction).Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Mike (good name, BTW), I removed your speedy tag, as I feel there's definitely a claim of notability in the article (plus, we might as well just let the AfD go down). With that said, I'm still going with delete because the claims in the article are highly insufficient. -- Kicking222 03:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I have satisfied specific criteria as listed in notability guidelines (Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media; Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city; Has won or placed in a major music competition; Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style/technique in a particular music genre; Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture). Concerns about "claims" can be aired on talk page or with "citation needed" tags. These nominations are from one Wiki user whom I got into a scuffle over a different article on, and now he's apparently targeting all my contributions. Parsssseltongue 03:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment It's more that I saw a pattern of non-notability in a few of his contributions, and figured they deserved a community review here. But of course, that's not really the case, it's just an excuse. It's really that I'm an evil monster out to chomp on someone's precious baby. Babies, YUM! — Mike • 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- response Notability has been met, as listed above, rendering your nomination inappropriate. Even further changes have been made to said article to assert notability. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- response If the community decides that way, or fails to render a consensus vote of delete, then so be it. I still feel the group has notability problems sufficient enough that a community review is warranted. — Mike • 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- response Notability has been met, as listed above, rendering your nomination inappropriate. Even further changes have been made to said article to assert notability. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment It's more that I saw a pattern of non-notability in a few of his contributions, and figured they deserved a community review here. But of course, that's not really the case, it's just an excuse. It's really that I'm an evil monster out to chomp on someone's precious baby. Babies, YUM! — Mike • 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 257 G-hits. Morgan Wick 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Wikipedia's article on the Google test states the minimum number of matches you should see if a term is not made up is Perhaps a few hundred, that search result(s) from Google are highly biased towards popular culture (so a subculture or radio friendly artist may not be reflected, but that does not neccessarily refute notability, does it?). Most importantly, The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. Since notability is the issue here per the nomination, your reasons for marking this article for deletion are still unclear. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep. A verifible nomination and performace in the "2006 Arizona Ska Punk Awards" may be a stretch to meet WP:MUSIC's "Has written a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition not established expressly for new comers," but it does distinguish him from many of the generic myspace page holders. Also, can his relationship to Stephen Foster and Elbert Hubbard be verified? This wouldn't be so much notable as just interesting. -MrFizyx 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment I know of no published geneaology charts or such online that could verify this! I know it's not an untrue claim, I just don't know how to cite it. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Said relationships don't necessarily need to be documented in an online source, as long as it's in some existing source that you can then appropriately cite (see citing sources style guide. But if no such source — online or offline — exists, then it would be (by definition) an unverifiable item, and thus would not belong. — Mike • 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment I know of no published geneaology charts or such online that could verify this! I know it's not an untrue claim, I just don't know how to cite it. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong delete not notable, the only source listed is a college paper that even says he is a local musician. definitely not local by my book. Trm3 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment A musician or band may be local to an area, but notability has been met, as listed above, and further changes have been made to said article to assert notability. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Has some notability but just not enough to warrant own articles. The sufficient measures to meet WP:MUSIC are also dicey to say the least.--Auger Martel 08:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - claims of notability just barely meet the guidelines, but they do meet them. MikeWazowski 22:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep easily verified in reliable secondary sources which are available as links, above notability threshold in my estimation. snug 22:11, 19 June 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.
