Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David T. Walker

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 no consensus. Doesn't really meet my idea of notability, but it's not about my idea - it's about consensus, and it's lacking here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David T. Walker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable session guitarist, no sources assert individual notability. Article was unfortunately de-prodded with an addition of an allmusic.com, which is insufficient. Overall, a failure of WP:MUSICBIO Tarc (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unnecessary proposal for deletion - a simple Wikipedia:Verifiability tag, such as "refimprove" would have sufficed to bring the article up to scratch. Contrary to statement in deletion proposal, the subject is highly notable session musician - but session musicians don't get rave write-ups in girlie magazines... --Technopat (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that actually are notable are written about in reliable sources; the ones that aren't, aren't. You can click on that google link above just as easily as anyone else can and note the reams of itunes, amazon.com, etc...type discography listings, and nothing more. Snark about "girlie magazines" is unhelpful to the discussion, so if you could, please note the 12 criteria of WP:MUSICBIO and explain which one this person meets. From what I can see, he fails all. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, the three inline citations I had added to the article since your AfD came from clicking the Google link you mention - there are many more where that came from, but surely sufficient to assert notability. As for my "snark", it was but a playful comment to illustrate the difficulty of finding references to session musicians, however notable they may be - a well-known phenomenon in the music industry, and the bane of session musicians who end up being credited only on the back cover. As for criteria, his releases for Ode Records, qualify under criterion 5.--Technopat (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think Ode qualifies as major or important indie, and the refs seem like, at best, trivial coverage. But others can weigh in on all that, as I think I've said my piece by now. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't take into consider "I really don't think"-type comments. There are enough people out there who actually know.--Technopat (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the Wikipedia doesn't consider incivil and bad-faith aspersions too highly either, so I guess that wipes out your commentary. If a firm statement is what is required, then "Ode Records is not a major or important indie record label." Tarc (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no non trivial coverage of the subject of the article. Lists of x played on y don't meet the grade for meeting notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2010 (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.