Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Babcock (musician)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Babcock (musician)[edit]

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

BLP without sourcing independent of the subject. Seems to be a session musician, may be notable but no indication. (COI editor has repeatedly removed maintenance templates keeping this article without proper BLP sourcing) Widefox; talk 13:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all.

I'd like to clear up a few things, the first being the "close connection" issue. Regardless if I am related to the person in question, I try to maintain and keep the article current. I feel this is a needless concern and should be dismissed. The information in this article is without personal bias, or COI in this case, as all the information in the article is comprised of information previously provided from various sources, largely off the internet. Having that been said, it's highly unlikely that those secondary sources are available to be referenced on Wikipedia. I do understand the need for varying sources, though my hands are pretty much tied (at least for now).

I'd also like to point out that this article has been active for five years without issue (or need of deletion). People have viewed the article and even made edits such as updating links and making corrections. It has also proven useful for the person in question. In addition to that, I don't understand how the article features "intricate detail". The amount of information isn't a lot compared to many other articles. The information also helps in the notability department of which you're concerned, so any elaboration on what's excessive would be helpful.

I'd like to ask the probability of the article getting removed any time soon so I may document the information therein. I'd rather this article not be deleted abruptly, so let's try to reach a fair assessment beforehand. MegaMacX (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is lack of notability - see WP:N - as in it doesn't have sources to meet WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Having a COI does not imply anything about your good intentions. You do have a COI (whether you accept it or not), and until now it has manifested itself when previously removing maintenance templates. Ironically, they aid other editors to see the lack of sources and help out. The standard for a WP:BLP is higher still than normal articles, so as you say, this article should not have existed for this long with such a lack of sources. Of course, find sources, else this just may appear like promotion and shouldn't be here. WP:ILIKEIT is an invalid reason to keep it. As the creator of the article, next time you maybe could draft in your own space - see WP:DRAFT, WP:AFC . As for preserving somewhere, feel free to read WP:DELETE (and WP:USERFY ) to inform yourself if worth taking this up with the closing admin. Widefox; talk 10:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that Babcock is a working musician. It's great that he makes a living at it. But I don't see the coverage that establishes notability. The press clippings presented are without context. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2013 (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.