Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Chapman (2nd 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chapman

Previously nominated for deletion in December, but I do not feel that the Keep !votes argued strongly in reference to Wikipedia policies in their reasoning. Furthermore, I believe a better reason for deletion (rather than WP:BIO1E) is that it does not meet the notability standards laid out in WP:MUSIC. Specifically, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band" and there seems to be little, if any, non-trivial coverage of him. There are a fair number to of sources to verify that he was briefly with The Stones, but nothing more than these trivial mentions, all of which is already in the article. This is not surprising, seeing as he was not with the band long and has little, if any, claim to notability outside his relatively brief stint. Cheers, CP 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not in the article, but he also formed a band called "The Preachers" (produced and managed by Bill Wyman), which was one of the first bands of Peter Frampton and where he was responsible for the first meeting between Bill and Peter.[1]. HE was also in The Cliftons with Bill Wyman. After the Preachers, he went on to play drums in "The Herd" (he isn't mentioned in our article, but he was a memeber for the first two years[2]), again with Peter Frampton, and also with Andy Bown (later of Status Quo) and others. Combined with the Stones, this seems to me to be enough for an article. Fram (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about how many bands he was in though, it's about the level of non-trivial coverage he receives. While I do feel that, if kept, the article should include the information that you have provided, it still does not address the WP:N and WP:MUSIC requirements. I'm not trying to change your !vote BTW, just wanted to clarify. Cheers, CP 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but he does meet WP:MUSIC, which states that "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." He was a member of a very notable band (but for a very short time), and member of a reasonably notable band for two years. It will probably stay a stub for a long time, but it is a very reasonable search term and can't be redirected since it should be redirected to both bands (and perhaps later The Cliftons, with Bill Wyman, as well) at the same time, which is technically impossible. A short article seems to be the best solution.Fram (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the first entry here[3], it looks as if he may get enough attention there to pass WP:N as well. Someone with easy access to this book should check this of course. Fram (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rolling Stones#Early_history. Not enough reliable sources to establish any sort of individual notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — From WP:MUSIC: "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." This person passes on this count (as also mentioned above). The article certainly needs some improvement though and I will work on this if I have the time. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I have added further information and references to assert notability, using the information above (thank you!). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2008 (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.