Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Carlock

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The result was Keep as withdrawn. Synergy 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Carlock[edit]

PROD removed without edit summary or justification by anonymous IP; reasoning remains the same: A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Dave Carlock – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a musician that appears to lack sufficient notability. Rogerb67 (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is only here because an anonymous editor removed the PROD notice with no edit summary and no justification; it doesn't need debate. Can't it just be deleted as unopposed? --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding: [1] [2] [3] [4]. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening the debate. I'm not really joking. None of the references you give are "reliable, third-party, published sources" that give "significant coverage" per WP:N; The first, Google books, gives only 3 references that appear to be about Dave Carlock, each of them is an entry in a directory, does not give "significant coverage" and thus does not indicate notability. The second links to discogs, which is open to edit like a wiki, and thus not reliable. Assuming the details are correct and could be found elsewhere, notability is not inherited per WP:ITSA and WP:BAND does not apply to recordings that an artist mixes, produces or "appears on", only ones on which they are the named solo artist ("releases" in Discogs terminology). Studioexpresso does not look like a "reliable source"; it looks like a commercial site offering production services. It is neither reliable nor independent. The final link is to a press release, which does nothing to establish notability. In summary, none of the references you provide establish notability, nor appear to provide useful avenues to explore in order to establish notability. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think the producer of Pink, Blink 182, Rancid and The Transplants is not notable, even tough he got a Grammy in 2004, you might delete him. Have fun!--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article and discogs entries carefully; he is not producer of all those acts. He certainly did not get a grammy; he got a "Grammy Award Certificate—Engineer"; i.e. he was engineer on the "bonus tracks"[5] not the main album[6] of a record that Pink got a grammy for "Best Female Rock Vocal Performance"; I'm not up on the precise role of an engineer in producing a pop record, but I presume it's possible he did not even have any direct input on the presentation of Pink's vocals on the final album, or that as "bonus tracks" the tracks he engineered for were not actually considered during the Grammy decision process. He was a session musician or engineer for most of the records he mentions. Discogs does not credit him with any records as producer; cf the eminently notable producer [Max Martin]. His article does appear to have been written in such a way as to imply that he did produce all those records and get a Grammy. I'm sure that was unintentional. As far as I can see, a P in the last row of a discography entry indicates the article claims he produced that record. Records his article claims he has produced are:

"Rough Day" by Johnny Morales
"Our Song" by Laura Scott
"Deelish" by Desiree Cuchiara
"Suffocating/Paralyzed" by Charlie Kim
"Criss Cross Applesauce" by Shelby Spalione
"Inneraction" by Shevyn
"Dragonfli Baby" by Jackie Ray
"End Of Reason" by End Of Reason
"Transplants" by Transplants (genuine joint credit on an album by a genuinely notable band, but remember WP:ITSA)
"Haunted Cities" by Transplants (genuine joint credit on an album by a genuinely notable band, but remember WP:ITSA)
"Blisstique" by Blisstique
"Electric Ladybugs" by Electric Ladybugs
"De Anima" by Counterpush

i.e two joint credits for charted releases by a single notable band. But there are no inherited notability clauses for producers in WP:MUSIC, only "musicians and ensembles", for works on which they are featured artists. Perhaps Carlock could be mentioned on the Transplants page.

His involvement with other notable acts mentioned above, as claimed in the article are as follows:

Pink: "E/Instr/BGV/" which I tentatively decipher as "engineer, instruments, background vocals"; i.e. engineer and session musician
Blink 182: "Pre-Prod E/Arr" - pre-production engineer and arrangement?
Rancid: "Writer/E/Edit" - writer, engineer, editor? Indeed he is credited as co-writer of the song "Spirit of '87". Common sense dictates that being co-writer of a single non-notable song of a charted album does not automatically confer notability. Also "M/E" and "Edit".

In conclusion we have an article that is a puff piece that appears to be successfully giving the erroneous impression that the subject is significantly involved with notable artists, while in fact his actual contribution is much lower. He is co-writer of a single non-notable song on a notable album and co-producer of two albums of a notable band. I must admit I missed these lower claims amongst all the puff, but I still think they do not amount to notability without "significant coverage" in "reliable third-party sources". It may be that with this additional information "mined" from the article, such references may be found. I will take a look. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done further research on the "Grammy"; in fact it was awarded for "Trouble" which is on the regular CD, on which Carlock is not credited as engineer. Thus while he may have got a nice shiny certificate (presumably handed out to everyone who worked on the album from which the track was taken), his actual involvement in the Grammy-winning product appears to have been as a session musician ("Organ, Bass (Electric), Keyboards, Vocals (bckgr), Drum Programming"). --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per above essay.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By which notability criterion? --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 years of notable work in the music industry: [7] He engineered the Grammy award winning "Trouble (Pink song)" for which he got his certificate [8] [9] [10] - not some unimportant bonus song as you might claim. Sorry, but he's all over the place on Try This.[11]. Open your eyes!--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability criterion (general, biographical or specifically on WP:MUSIC) states that this demonstrates notability? I really can't see it. Either he fits one or more specific criteria on WP:MUSIC or elsewhere, in which case he is notable, or he does not, in which case he isn't. Directory entries, like your allmusic citation, specifically do not confer notability in general per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-5. I don't see a criterion that states "over X credits on album notes" or "getting a certificate for engineering a Grammy-winning track" confers notability (I'm happy to concede he did engineer this track; the fact is he does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8 from this Grammy; Pink does). And calling his work "notable" is firstly a circular argument, and secondly an argument of inherited notability per WP:ITSA. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected your above statement and did not say he is only notable for that boring Pink song. He might not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8, but about every other - well let's drop #6. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then;

#1: I do not see any "non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" on this page; directory entries specifically do not demonstrate notability as discussed above.
#2: Sorry, I can't find a "Dave Carlock" mentioned on any national chart. Please provide a reference. Being a session musician, part of a group, producer etc. is not sufficient; there must be a charted hit featuring "Dave Carlock" or a recognised stage name of his as a headlined person.
#3: Again, this applies to the headlined artist(s), not people buried deep in the album notes
#4: Cite your source.
#5: Can't find it; please cite. Again, this applies to the headlined artist(s), not people buried deep in the album notes
#7: Simply crazy. Which style or city? Citation please.
#9: Which competition? I've seen no mention of competitions. Or do you mean the "Grammy Certificate" which you appeared to have conceded?
#10:Again, this applies to the headlined artist(s), not people buried deep in the album notes.
#11: Which major network? Citation?
#11: Which major network? Citation?

--Rogerb67 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guy, you really must be blind. Gotta go to bed now.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I still don't accept HexaChord's arguments, however research following on from a closer reading of the article has turned up some (relatively) reliable sources which will assist in writing a reasonable article to replace the current one; these references together with the allmusic directory entries at least come close to establishing notability, and more sources may come to light as a decent article is written. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good boy.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:26, 28 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.