Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Bush

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 of the nomination was keep. Sango 123 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bush

Surely, surely this is WP:NFT!!!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (CSD G1) and transwiki to Uncyclopedia. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: the above vote was cast when I was heavily sleep deprived and didn't read the article carefully. It read like nonsense because of the talk of locked rooms, divorces, and George Bush (who is, after all, commonly compared to monkeys for comedic purposes). Major apologies. This man clearly meets WP:BIO, as several people below have remarked. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't qualify for patent nonsense but it is nonsense DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—This is not really nonsense at all. Interestingly enough, Joe Bush may meet WP:BIO due to his coverage in major publications. Ardric47 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - He might just barely squeak by WP:BIO - apparently reviewed by several media organizations, though original articles aren't available. By definition, can an individual organ grinder qualify as a notable person? If so, this guy's taken his act pretty far and would seemingly qualify as one of the most notable in his field. If not, delete. HumbleGod 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be cleaned and checked for NPOV, but, as unlikely as it seems after reading the article, he may just make it per WP:BIO. Has been featured in such articles as [1] and [2] and [3]. "Joe Bush" "organ grinder" gets a fair number of Google hits (684). I say keep it. GassyGuy 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you've got the wrong Joe Bush - There are no ghits under his "stagename" and none (that I can see) relating to Joe Bush, the organ grinder who entertained Ronald Regan and laterly George Bush (who incidentaly, the article claimed he was locked in a cupboard with leading to Joe's divorce) DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think the articles are about other organ grinders coincidentally named Joe Bush? And the article says he was locked in his room with George, the name of his monkey, not George Bush. I agree that unverifiable facts need to be weeded out of the article, but if you read the articles to which I linked, a lot of these facts are corroborated. Update I should note that those articles are actually the same one article printed in a number of different newspapers. I'm not sure if that counts as multiple sources or not. GassyGuy 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowing it down helps, but still lots of duplicates and not a lot of hits, fwiw. Though this page apparently has an audio clip of a radio interview. Couple that with the recent newspaper treatment listed in the article, and I'm leaning closer to "weak keep" per WP:BIO Still not close enough, though. HumbleGod 07:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah !!! I read it as being he was in the cupboard with George (Bush) not George (the monkey) ... I only saw your links after I'd posted (edit conflict) - it's defo not WP:NFT and I suspect he'll get through WP:BIO DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) <<< who is now tired & going to bed !![reply]

Changing my vote to weak keep. The LATimes article is cited, and I was able to find two radio pieces, including one on NPR (a discussion with Craig Ferguson, but subject is a central part of the interview, strangely). This wouldn't necessarily qualify one for notability, but he squeaks by WP:BIO with a few publicized pieces and the fact that he's the biggest name in his (admittedly dying) field. Lord, I didn't wake up this morning thinking I'd defend an article on an organ grinder, and I doubt I'd ever defend another, but I think this one's a keeper. HumbleGod 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no wiki expert. But I say keep. I heard him on a radio show. His story was fascinating and he really knows the organ grinding business. While this page obviously benefits him, the story is that of old time America. Keep it. --SafeLibraries 08:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newspaper article is an adequate source. The article could use a little work, but it seems to meet all the applicable policies. This looks more like a candidate for WP:DYK than for WP:NFT. — Haeleth Talk 15:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is difficult to give the Google test much weight these days, but it should be noted that "Joe Bush" +monkey returns 13,300 hits, most of which are relevant. I suspect that is a decent number for an organ gringer and his monkey. In any case, this is legit, not made up in school one day, and is interesting enough to be notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense, what is an "organ grinder"? --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are you joking or are you serious? I thought organ grinders were a commonly known thing. Either way, if you WERE serious, it'd be a prime example of laziness, when the info is on this very site. Parsssseltongue 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you kidding me with the "what is an organ grinder" comment? People shouldn't delete things just because they don't know about or understand them. BTW, I heard the segment on NPR about this subject, too. Parsssseltongue 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just that type of information people will look for at Wikipedia. bbx 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weak notability... but still enough to warrant inclusion under WP:BIO. ALKIVAR™ 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable individual (stablished by media references above - LA Times and radio shows) in a dying profession. Should be kept, as we may never see another notable organ grinder again, if Wikipedia is to be the repository of all knowledge, we need a few organ grinder articles and biographies. Build this up by all means. I don't think I've ever gotten a better laugh out of deciding what to say in an AFD before. GRBerry 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - trivial but fun and 'good enough' considering he's the last of the race. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:59, 8 July 2006 (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.