Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Beaker

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. Arguments for keep based on notability guidelines are pretty strong. There are some valid concerns about COI and self-promotion (though less so after the cleanup), but those are more editorial issues than AfD issues.--Kubigula (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Beaker

Norman Beaker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable. Article was created to self-promote. Enigma msg! 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if the claims in the article can be confirmed. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Norman+Beaker%22+guitar --Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: A side man with a band is a grand thing, but a press clipping from a promotional website being pasted into Wikipedia is not. "Recorded with" usually means "uncredited," and many great men and women have been obscured that way, but it is not Wikipedia's job to set the record straight, to forge new ground, to provide original research nor verify claims. The article is a squished potato and not anywhere near encyclopedic standards. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. So Norman Beaker was a "side man" with the Norman Beaker Band? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - As of now I'd have to go with delete. The article is pitiful. However, if this person is real (and notable) and you can find enough info on them go ahead and make the article again, but this time, better. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per what I said above. I don't think he's notable, and he started his own page to self-promote. Probably a good sign you're not notable when that happens. Enigma msg! 00:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A extremely brief search reveals he is listed in a book called The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 by Andy Gregory and published by Routledge. [1], as well as listed in Google news archives search. [2] I will look for more and begin cleaning up the article. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, he is listed in at least four other books (6 total; 2 unsure)..... [3]. What ever happened to WP:Assume Good Faith and at least taking a few minutes to research a topic before nominating for deletion? In conclusion, this artist has been written about in multiple reliable third-party souces and thereby passes WP:BIO and WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Additional evidence of notability: AMG credits, plus he has recorded on at least two notable record labels, JSP Records and Delicious Vinyl. Notability is further established per WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The label his record is on is Delicious, not Delicious Vinyl. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable self promo. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I have proven where this artist meets WP:Music at multiple levels. Can you prove where he fails it? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I have proven where this artist meets WP:Music at multiple levels. Can you prove where he fails it? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, congrats on becoming an new administrator as of yesterday. [4] You really should know better than to participate in a debate without providing Wikipedia guidelines to back up your argument. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on. He just was named admin. Can you at least wait a few days before the "an admin should know better" attacks start? ;) Enigma msg! 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. Have any of the delete !voters actually read the article and the sources? Passes WP:MUSIC on albums, touring and other points, and anyway easily passes general WP:N and WP:BIO standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Thank you. In all fairness, the article was a mess when the delete voters prior to my keep reasoning saw it, and I have since attempted cleanup and added sources. I have asked them to revisit the article and this debate. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read the history before making accusations. The article was total crap and deserved to be deleted. As has happened many times in the past, the only way to get someone to look at an article and improve it is to nominate it for deletion. Cricket has now, to his credit, made some good improvements, and the article is now arguably up to standards. Acting like the article is in great shape and everyone who voted to delete didn't bother to read the article is acting in really poor taste and shows a lack of judgment and research on your part. Enigma msg! 17:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I retract my comments with respect to those who said "delete" before Cricket02's improvements. They still stand for those who did so afterwards. As regards the statement "the only way to get someone to look at an article and improve it is to nominate it for deletion", why not look for sources and improve it yourself? We're all volunteers here, so it's just as much your responsibility as it it Cricket02's or anyone else's to improve it. The sources were readily available with a couple of quick searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Everyone except the last one voted Delete before Cricket improved the page. Yes, we're all volunteers here, but I don't generally write new articles. I've never done it before. I focus on reverting vandalism, warning vandals, and making corrections to articles that have a structure. If I see an article that's a mess, I'm more likely to nominate it at AfD (this is my second AfD nom) than rewrite it. Finally, there are still some concerns about the notability. When I nominated it, the article was not only garbage, but I also noticed that it appeared to have been written by Norman Beaker himself. That's a red flag for me. Enigma msg! 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to comment on your last sentence. You used the word 'responsibility'. It's no one's responsibility to make sure there's an article on anything whatsoever. It's not Cricket's responsibility, and it's certainly not mine. I'm sure there are articles here that have not been created yet, that should be created, but it's not my responsibility. The only way you could say someone is responsible for it would be if they were being paid to keep the encyclopedia up to date and complete. Enigma msg! 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That was exactly my point. Who is this "someone" that you are trying to get to look at an article and improve it? It's nobody's responsibility to improve an article, so if you think an article should be improved then you should have a go at doing it. Try it; it's much more fun than getting articles deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no someone. I was pointing out that it's a common occurrence for an editor to see an AfD and then improve the article. Say for whatever reason, I didn't want to write the article. Posting on the article's Talk page does nothing. So then what? I see WP:Bold mentioned often. I don't think I'm lacking that, but what I am lacking is the right way to write an article on Wikipedia. Enigma msg! 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete an nn with COI issues. Fair Deal (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. You didn't look at the article at all. There are no WP:COI issues now, the article is completely neutral. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Normally I err on the side of supporting the inclusion of borderline cases like this. However, the fact remains that he is essentially a not very notable sideman who sometimes fronts his own band. Given his tendency for self-promotion I am not convinced that a number of the other references cited don't exist through his own efforts either. What sways the argument for me is his persistent refusal (and that of his friends) to ignore all WP:COI and other guidelines, despite polite requests to do so, not only on his own article but also in other articles such as Alexis Korner and List of blues musicians. If this article remains, I have no doubt that he will use its very existence to assert his notability elsewhere ("I'm famous because I've got a Wikipedia article") in further self-promotion. Unfortunately, Mr Beaker's own attitude and disrespect for consensual guidelines isn't doing him any favours here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. "Borderline case?" Did you know the Wikipedia guidelines when you first signed on? I sure didn't. My first article was shear crap. So maybe you are biting the newcomer. Regardless of whether this subject edited his own article, the fact remains that he clearly passes Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion per WP:BIO and WP:Music per my evidence above, i.e. (book source The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 is not good enough for you?). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK - keep (slightly reluctantly, given the circumstances). Although it's getting a little difficult to tease out the merits of the article from the personal barbs now, Cricket02 has done a good job in improving the article from the initial vanity puff, and I do now accept there is some evidence of sufficient notability for a brief article on this person - but it will need to be kept an eye on, and should not be taken as meaning that Mr Beaker needs to be mentioned in every article with which he can claim some small connection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There doesn't appear to be anything that makes Norman Beaker notable, he is a hired sidesman, who's notability is based on reflected glory, rather than anything he has done. I also must take on board that the article is created for self-promotion. It's no different from individual band members not getting articles because they are not notable individually. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Now, that is just a flat out mean comment to make yourself feel bigger. You haven't even looked at the sources have you. I vote delete on these things more times than not but this subject is notable enough for this experienced music-related editor to adopt his article so there shouldn't be any more COI issues. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Assuming Cricket02's comment was directed at me, I have re-read the sources and I am doubly convinced that Mr. Beaker is not notable with the evidence supplied. With due respect, a listing in music-specific book does not necessarily transfer to a general encyclopedia. OTOH I am willing to have my mind changed --Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Forget the sources for the time being, re-read WP:MUSIC (#1, #4, #5 (3 albums under NBB), #7 (blues music in NW England)) which seems to say that he meets the notability requirements easily. Additionally, badly written and CoI is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to rewrite if the article's subject meets notability requirements, which Beaker does easily. --WebHamster 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Seal Clubber (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Norman Beaker is one of the British Blues greats, not to mention the North-West, not only that he meets WP:MUSIC if only on the number of albums he has released. --WebHamster 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems notable enough, but more information about the individual would be useful. Clean up the inline citations. — BQZip01 — talk 02:58, 26 February 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.