Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holger Lagerfeldt

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 was Keep. As demonstrated below, subject meets the threshhold for notability set by WP:MUSIC; and conflicts of interest - while a reason to watch the page for POV and bias - are not a reason for deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holger Lagerfeldt

Holger Lagerfeldt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete A) The article lacks citations from verifiable sources. B) This subject as an engineer is NOT notable enough to justify an article page. C) Barely meets WP:MUSIC as a co-author of 2 charting songs. D) He does not meet WP:BIO. E) Obvious WP:COI problem (created article under a username User:Sensimilla with IP address 62.107.210.179). F) Blatant promotion of the subject's websites (external links for "www.Popmusic.de, www.onlinemastering.de"). Wikipedia is not a place to promote web sites. Jrod2 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This article would meet WP:MUSIC as a co-writer[1] of a #1 charting song, ""The Whistle Song" by DJ Aligator, if the chart position on the Danish music chart can be verified. dissolvetalk 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You can not use a Wikipedia article to prove his credit. Also, the Billboard page you are pointing at does not mention him. I would agree to stop seeking deletion of this article, the problem is that I've been trying to find a verifiable source citing his top charting credit but all I get is articles where he himself is the author. There are also not citations about the 50 platinum and gold records from any source, I have a problem with that. I also believe that we can't have links to his websites as primary references for the article and these links should be deleted whether it can be proven that he had a #1 hit or not.Jrod2 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Discogs lists him as the co-writer "This Is How We Party",[3] as does the ASCAP database.[4] Is there really a doubt that this is the same person credited as Holger rather than the full name Holger Lagerfeldt? dissolvetalk 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you justify making a biographical article page based on this evidence? If one had a top 20 charting record in BillBoard, one can then make an article page about oneself?. Finally, do you approve having all the external links that promote his audio engineering services?Jrod2 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While the analogy is tempting, I'm reluctant to extend inherent notability to engineers or producers on the basis of a charting release. Is this the intent of WP:MUSIC? While engineers and especially producers can have tremendous influence on the music they work on, in other cases (perhaps the vast majority) their involvement is more perfunctory and in the realm of work-for-hire. I would prefer a case be made for WP:BIO notability as an engineer, e.g. articles discussing his work or reputation. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:MUSIC doesn't currently apply to engineers, producers or session musicians, only to performers, composers/lyricists, songs and albums. I'm not sure I agree with this, as there are numerous circumstances where the contributions of engineers and producers had as much, if not more, to do with the commercial success of a recording when compared to the performer's contribution. Incidentally, this is why Grammy Awards are awarded to everyone involved in the making of a recording and not just the songwriter(s) and artist. To date these concerns haven't been brought up at WP:MUSIC, so WP:BIO is the current standard applied to engineers and producers. My case for this article under WP:MUSIC is strictly notability as a songwriter. dissolvetalk 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Keep not my usual subject, but the leaders in every profession are notable. I assume there is generally considered a greater renown in general for the composers and singers than the producers--I doubt the producer of a single hit would be considered notable, but his record seems far beyond that. DGG (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a confusion among users as to what it is admissible and what is not. Dissolve argues that as a songwriter, Holger is eligible, but not as an engineer? DGG argues that producers should not be included based on a hit record, but Holger as a songwriter of 2 charting records is good enough. Dhartung argues against having any inherent notability with engineers or producers. That is not WP policy. Take a look at Bernie Grundman, Bob Ludwig, Norman Smith_(record producer), Ken Townsend, Geoff Emerick and many others that have engineered or produced records. They all have a bio page, the difference is that they are notable. So, what is the minimum criteria for inclusion of an engineer, producer or mastering engineer, to create his bio article page here at Wikipedia??? If one had a charting record, say a "Top 40", not here but in Denmark, not as a songwriter but as the mastering engineer, is he not notable enough to have his own bio page at WP??? In the case of Holger, what all of you need to evaluate first is the reason why somebody that came from Denmark in 2006, apparently felt Holger L. is so important that he should have an extensive article of his own at Wikipedia complete with links to his business and other web sites. Not even Ken Townsend who engineered Beatles records had so much information written about him on his biographical page by one user .Jrod2 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment To be sure, my comment above was Socratic argument. As Dissolve points out, though, WP:MUSIC currently does not provide for inherent notability for engineers and producers, even if it might be sensible to do so using the industry's own awards criteria. Nevertheless, citing other notable producers does not argue for this person's notability; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Also, the motivation of someone writing an article is not itself a demonstration of notability; see WP:EFFORT. What do the sources say? --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Dhartung, we due respect, you confuse me more than you direct me to the answer. In your question (What do the sources say?) are you talking about the article link references? If so, all the original references (minus the ones Dissolve added yesterday) point at this individual's websites. What I understand from inherent notability is that when an artist has a top charting record and/or wins an award and becomes famous by virtue of the record's success, his engineer and/or producers benefit and may get an award as well. It is the criteria the Recording Academy applies to nominate and to award Grammys. So, I haven't had time to study WP:MUSIC I don't need to. The prove is on the examples I gave above with those engineers and producers. Bottom line, Holger's page exploits the fact that he had a couple of bona fide charting records and the rest is to sell his CDs and to direct people to his websites. Needless, to say the impact that this WP page has had for his benefit on the search engine rankings. It is in my view, as member of WP:CVU, that everybody's attitude here is an invitation to have thousands of half ass songwriters-engineer-producers from all over the world to create new vanity pages and to spam Wikipedia on the technicality that if they had a #25 charting Billboard record in Tibet, they are entitled to it.Jrod2 (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If he does meet WP:MUSIC as a songwriter, that is, satisfies our existing guidelines for inclusion, I have no problem with the entry also discussing his engineering and producing credits. If he does NOT merit WP:MUSIC as a songwriter, I see no argument for retention on the basis of engineering and production credits being analogous (or "just as important") to the so-called creative people that are generally notable. The technical people, when wildly successful and sought out, DO become notable -- particularly in certain genres -- but I don't think that extending INHERENT notability on the basis of a chart position is the way to go, because they just don't get a fraction of the coverage, i.e. the notability, that the singers or songwriters do. In other words, I'm not willing to go beyond WP:MUSIC just now on that basis. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Dhartung, thanks for your comments. If that's your position ("I don't think that extending INHERENT notability on the basis of a chart position is the way to go..") then Holger according to you doesn't meet the requirement. However, he does have 2 credits as a songwriter and co-author of charting songs. He didn't sing on them, or was a band member. Those 2 credits meet the requirements only under WP:MUSIC not WP:BIO. My argument and problem with him is that he created the article page himself and therefore, violated WP guidelines (See:WP:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F and WP:MUSIC#cite_note-selfpromo-0). I also wouldn't have had no problem with the entry discussing his engineering and producing credits. But, the fact that wrote the article himself and posted the links to his websites, are sufficient enough to eliminate him altogether. Jrod2 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (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.