Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Charles Griggs

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. --Ezeu 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Charles Griggs

Musician who made one album in 1973 before dropping out. Only reference a recent local newspaper article about him, but seems to have made few -- if any -- ripples on the music world. The article's creator says [t]he problem is that there simply aren't any other references aside from the one article... making verification, well, difficult. I went so far as to e-mail rock-and-roll historian Ed Ward for help, but he said that while the producer and session musicians were pretty well-known, he's never heard of this guy, either. I mean, good luck on the comeback, but let's wait until that happens or some verification that this made SOME impact on the music world. Calton | Talk 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, include the album, The Legend of Sir Robert Charles Griggs. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete main article per Calton. No decision yet on the album. Not really that notable and would be a borderline A7. – Chacor 07:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep for both. Here's an article on him, his album was released on Capitol Records in 1973. I don't think it'd be a net benefit to lose this article based on the associations he had. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• What part of Only reference a recent local newspaper article about him in my nomination did you overlook? What section of my nomination having to do with "associations" did I overlook? What aspect of a single local newspaper article -- for which the subject was, no doubt, the source of the information in it -- counts as "multiple" coverage? Are WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:Reliable sources, WP:References, and WP:CITE the only policies you've decided can be dispensed with, or do you have any more you want to jettison? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't overlook it at all. Taking the situation into consideration, coupled by the fact that all we're looking at right now is online sources, I'm not "dispensing" with any policies. I'm thinking this is one of those times where the "just because a person doesn't meet WP:BIO, they don't have to be deleted" clause comes into effect. This is a unique instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, you HAVE dispensed with every single standard, because -- well, you don't even bother to explain the "because", either. Any more handwaving and we could run a windmill. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your inability to understand my actual arguments doesn't invalidate them. I'm sorry I can't be clearer for you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just want to point out that the information in the article is verified by the informational booklet published by Capitol Records for the release of the album, which I will remind you was a nationwide release on one of the biggest record labels in the music industry. This can be confirmed by Capitol Records. Also, I checked this with Gary Paxton, who confirmed it. And Gary no doubt knows more about such things than Ed Ward. In addition, a quick yahoo search will show that Griggs' songs appear on country music playlists for radio stations all across the country. I would also suggest that it is unneccessary to take this discusion and debate so personally. Justinkrivers 06:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would also suggest that it is unneccessary [sic] to take this discusion [sic] and debate so personally. If that was aimed at me, you first. I've gone the extra mile to help you: that you've done nothing to actually help yourself choosing instead to argue irrelevancies isn't my problem.
• Once again, the question is NOT whether this guy and his album ever existed: I should point out that my mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my MUJI AT-DF09R2 Desk Fan in front of me all exist, and they're not getting articles, either. Once again, it's WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (has this guy done enough in the world to rate an article? No.), WP:Reliable sources (a personal conversation you say you had with someone? Not enough.), WP:References (Yahoo searches that are uncited? Which proves what, exactly?) and WP:CITE (one lone local newspaper clipping, with the information presumably coming from the subject?) --Calton | Talk 06:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with saying that this subject doesn't deserve an article simply because he hasn't done enough in your opinion to merit one is that since he is an artist it is impossible to gauge what merits his work will have to future critics. If Wikipedia existed in the 1860's and someone tried to post an article on Emily Dickinson, it could be deleted for the same reasons you are offering now. Because this man is an artist and because he is still living, and therefore able to offer future works, he deserves an article so that future researchers have a starting point.Skylark29 10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Skylark29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. Indeed, this was his first edit. – Chacor 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep. borderline noitability Mukadderat 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not as famous as Willie Nelson, but notable in the country music world. --Marriedtofilm 07:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew Robert Charles Griggs years ago, he was a pretty notable Nashville guy, wrote a hit, and I think it's good to have him here

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.