Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Findley

Chuck Findley

Chuck Findley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete. This article was tagged a year ago but little has changed. It shows no evidence that this person should be included in an encyclopedia. Although the creator has written a response on the articel's talk page, I don't feel this in any way addresses the fact that this person is not notable. Hndis (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. As any professional and/or person interested in the music industry well knows, session musicians - however notable - tend not to get their names in the press. Finding sources other than album credits is thus relatively difficult, but doesn't make such musicians any less notable, i.e. deserving mention on Wikipedia.--Technopat (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral simple questions for both the nom and Technopat is which of the many WP:MUSIC and/or WP:N criteria does he meet? Which reliable 3rd party sources cover this in what would be considered a non-trival manner? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While I agree with Jasynnash2 about our usual standard of needing third party references covering the subject in a non-trivial manner in order to prove notability, I believe that the subject of this article is somewhat of a musical gnome and, as such, is unlikely to receive such coverage on his own. However, due to his participation in numerous musical projects of which many have beem deemed notable enough for Wikipedia (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Chuck Findley), I believe he crosses the threshold of inclusion into this encyclopedia. It's true that none of those projects by themselves absolutely guarantee his inclusion in Wikipedia but, as a whole, his body of work is large enough and has received enough third party independent and non-trivial coverage that it wouldn't be unreasonable if we allow him to squeeze by the notability guideline. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The only arguments for keeping are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety. VG ☎ 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Clearly, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I couldn't disagree more that ILIKEIT has anything to do with my rationale. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom and VG. If he is a gnome, i.e. performing without much recognition, then I don't see how he can be notable. --Kleinzach 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. After creating the article, apart from wikilinking it, I forgot all about, and didn't get round to adding references. This was partly because I didn't have time - how many 24/7 editors are there here? -, and partly because I was relying on Wikipedia editors to rally round. When the deletion template appeared, I added some perfectly reliable third party references/sources which were not there when the template was slapped on. With such references - admittedly no journalist fan of the article subject has yet written a biography - is it still a candidate for deletion? --Technopat (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as the only arguments for deleting are of the “I don’t like it” variety.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)