Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (3rd 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 was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Holly

This article is about a musician with claims to notability including Grammy Award nominations ... the problem is, most of these claims are unverifiable.

This article has been up for deletion twice before. The first time, it was deleted. After that, it was created in the Wikipedia namespace for some reason, then moved into the main namespace and nominated for deletion again, where it was closed as a "no consensus keep". In response to the "no consensus keep", I added {{fact}} templates to the article in hopes of encouraging the subject's fans to improve the verifiability of the claims. However, that was over three months ago, and nobody has made a single edit to the article since then until it was nominated for AfD.

As to the substantive claims in the article, Pete Holly's web site says "-4-GRAMMY NOMINATIONS FOR "PETE HOLLY III"- -INCLUDING ONE FOR THE VIDEO "HEART OF GOLD"-in 2006-" yet his name never appears on the most recent year's list of Grammy nominees. The article only claims that Holly has "received 4 first round nominations from "The Recording Academy"" but there is no such thing as a "first round nomination" in the Grammys. Entries to the Grammys are screened to determine eligibility, but the Grammy web site explains that "The purpose of screenings is not to make artistic or technical judgments about the recordings, but rather to make sure that each entry is eligible and placed in its proper category." [1] The only recordings that can be considered "nominees" for the Grammys are those which make the final five choices in each category, which I don't believe Pete Holly has ever done.

Maybe Pete Holly really does meet one or more of the WP:MUSIC criteria, but the article really needs verification from reliable sources, because I have never seen a musician's web site blatantly lie about his receiving Grammy nominations in the same way that Holly's does. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect - looks like some kind of joke. This supports the notion that such an artist exists, but they all appear to not be in stock (suggesting self-published at best). All other hits point to out-of-date wikipedia mirrors (!) and myspace/sites that point to myspace. My first guess is, serial hoax. Someone named Pete Holly does have some albums, but a grammy nominee's CDs would be in stock *somewhere*. The link I provide there shows him as the producer and sound engineer, suggesting self-released. My Alt Account 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - addendum - since this has been deleted so many times and notability hasn't been verifiably established, salt the earth. My Alt Account 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and how could I forget to comment on [2]? I have no words to describe it, you just have to see for yourself. My Alt Account 05:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you look at Amazon? They have his albums in stock. Besides, having an album out of stock in an online store and a crappy website are not criteria for deletion. BTW, this is only the 3rd nomination for deletion. The previous ones were closed as no consensus. It hasn't been deleted before. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It was deleted on the first nomination, but closed with a no consensus keep the second time. See the links in the second paragraph above. --Metropolitan90 16:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. But that is still not a reason to delete and protect this version. I also feel that lack of attention is not a criteria for deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 07:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Artist has released three albums on The Orchard (music label).[3] Meets notability criteria of WP:NMG #4. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Malber. Kappa 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as having longstanding verifiability problems. I pointed out in May that the article was largely unreferenced and, since then, the only article improvements have been minor spelling corrections. If, after three months, nobody has bothered to reference the article, it should be deleted. If someone wants to write a version that meets the verifiability policy such a version could be re-created without prejudice, but the article in its present state should not be kept. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've found at least one review on Rolling Stone. Unfortunately, I can't access music sites where I am. Lack of sources means the article requires {{attention}}, not deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. PJM 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Anger22 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Malber.--Adrift* 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lack of verifiable references is a different issue than notability. FilmGal 02:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To be clear, another editor has removed all the unverifiable content from the article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Scratch that, the article now contains some unsourced content again. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I strongly advise the closing admin to review the content of the article at the time this discussion closes, because it has gone through about four different versions so far (i.e. with significantly different amounts of content) since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "lack of verifiable references is a different issue than notability." Yes, it's a much more serious issue. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Malber's comment regarding three albums on The Orchard (music label) is problematic to me. If one goes to their website, one will find that The Orchard is, as near as I can tell, a distributor of albums for independent musicians and small labels - but it is not a record label, producer, etc. They distribute more than 14,000 artists. I would suspect I could get distributed by them if I were to record something and pay them enough. The artist thus fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 14 September 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.