Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Reed (musician)
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jake Reed (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
musician with no notability outside of a single band; fails WP:MUSICBIO, no reliable third party sources either Tassedethe (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that there is a substantial amount of musicians on Wikipedia that have no notability outside of a single band, yet their pages have never been challenged. This page has now been edited to include reliable third party references and to also show this musician is notable for more than just one band. For support of this, you only have to look at TAT, an entry on this very site. I think the deletion of this article would be completely unecessary. Helloyou32 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Myspace is not considered a reliable source and I can't see download.com being one. Do their staff write their descriptions? Do they copy them from other places (like Wikipedia)? Without knowing neither of these are reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 16:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep, although thanks for pointing out some pages for me to get rid of. Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the exception of 'other stuff exists' (which yes, I also believe is not a good enough reason) Helloyou32 has supplied valid sources and has edited the page to show that this musician performs in multiple areas. With these edits, he/she is keeping within the guidelines set by Wikipedia and is doing no one any harm. Do Not Delete Ballandchain77 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, a brand new user with contributions only to tat-related articles. My my, not dodgy at all. If you can provide a reference linking Jake Reed and Bruno Jenkins I'll be happy to vote keep, but all you've shown so far is that Jenkins exists. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, there we go. See reference [4] on the article. And yes, I am a TAT fan and so far have only used Wikipedia for TAT related entries. I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with that. I have used Wikipedia before but not for a while, and not under this username. Ballandchain77 (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, a brand new user with contributions only to tat-related articles. My my, not dodgy at all. If you can provide a reference linking Jake Reed and Bruno Jenkins I'll be happy to vote keep, but all you've shown so far is that Jenkins exists. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the exception of 'other stuff exists' (which yes, I also believe is not a good enough reason) Helloyou32 has supplied valid sources and has edited the page to show that this musician performs in multiple areas. With these edits, he/she is keeping within the guidelines set by Wikipedia and is doing no one any harm. Do Not Delete Ballandchain77 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists is generally not a good reason to keep something, but it's not set in stone. If others haven't been challenged it's presumably because those were good articles. It's also not a good reason to not consider a merge before a deletion either. - Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral until references for solo project have been improved. If they don't improve, merge- Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails individual notability outside of the band, per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, looks like I've been beaten. Is there any way this article can be deleted now? I would like to recreate it from scratch without all the deletion talk and messy history. I will recreate it with a simple redirect to the main TAT article until I can reconstruct the content with better references that show the musicians notability outside of one musical act. Helloyou32|(talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.