Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty Sammon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Sammon[edit]

Marty Sammon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously nominated for speedy delete. I deleted that tag, as it doesn't qualify, and am now nominating it for AfD to determine if this person has the notability to remain. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subject fails WP:MUSICIAN, and article appears to be a WP:COI written by his friend Phil Guy.. No independent reliable sources to demonstrate is notability. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Ohconfucius, [Guy] is deceased. Phil Guy did not write this article. Please review the provided links closer before commenting that the subject matter does not demonstrate notability. This does not violate any conflict of interest policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwphil (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Milwphil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP In response to an earlier suggestion to delete. The references include The Library of Congress, Martin Scorsese's 2 time Grammy Award Winning Blues Series, Allmusic (credits)-which appears on many musicians wiki sites, Jive Label Group (record label) for Buddy Guy's Grammy Award winning album "Living Proof" (again Marty is listed as a credit), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.56 (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Sammon has represented Chicago Blues in universities, high schools and middle schools which also qualifies under the Notability policy "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" — Milwphil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP Sammon has been a member of over 2 musical ensembles that are notable Otis Rush(Cobra, Chess, Duke, Delmark, etc), Buddy Guy (Cobra, Chess, Jive, Delmark, Silvertone, etc), Phil Guy (JSP) and L.V. Banks (Wolf Records). Standard "...musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwphil (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Milwphil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You've also made multiple votes both logged in and not logged in so as to appear to be two separate users. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I sent it to speedy delete because of CS7. There is no indication of importance. Being a lead singer doesn't give you importance. Being a manager, director, vp, or svp doesn't give you importance either. Reliable sources for notability were not provided at the time of the speedy and are not there now either. If we add to that the COI problem, as pointed to by Ohconfucius, it seems like I should have prodded it. Not everyone can have an article in wikipedia, and inapplicability of the Speedy makes people waste time at Afd, which should be used only for articles that have been around for more than a week.Divide et Impera (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has improved significantly and is full of references now which satisfy WP:BAND #6, #7, and #10. In addition, concerns on a probable COI seem to have dissipated. I apologize to the wikipedia community once again for hurrying too much to ask for a speedy deletion, when the article was not ready yet. My vote is final.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - he appears to be not more than a background musician. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bearian did not challenge already cited guidelines for Musician notability. The subjects discography proves he is more than a "background musician" (several releases and live performances on the radio), he has been a member of multiple ensembles of notability (which is referenced by appearances on Grammy award winning films/audio recordings, etc), he has been chosen as a local expert in his field by representing his art form in educational settings and produced documentaries (currently in production). He also co-headlined a tour in Latvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.121.70 (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearian please provide supporting evidence per the guidelines. I agree with a "side bar" discussion with Divide et Impera, his appearance on Martin Scorsese's Grammy Award winning Blues Series should provide adequate evidence on notarity alone. See WP:BAND#10. Also, #6 and #7. Please respond, I'd like to consider all submitted evidence that would suggest otherwise. Thank you for consideration and attention to this article. Milwphil (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I could not find any evidence from reliable sources that he even appeared as a solo musician on the Blues Series; also his name was not in several sources cited. I'm not saying he didn't actually perform, but I can't find any good source that says he did so. I am just asking for better sourcing before I support inclusion of this particular musician. I tend to be slightly more solicitious than the average Wikipedian, but not terribly so. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed this article again, and come to the conclusion that I can't oppose it based on sourcing, because the soucing can be fixed under ordinary editing processes. I must agree that he barely passes notability. Weak keep. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: All the spa votes carry no weight so we are left with two established users depreciating the sources and Bearian initially voting delete and then going marginal keep after reviewing the sources in detail. That's clearly the decider here and for fairness I feel this discussion requires a solid analysis of the sources to resolve. So please could someone summarise the sources about the subject and comment on their reliability so a consensus can be drawn. Spartaz Humbug! 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion these sources are insufficiently reliable for a BLP. There's a tripod site and various blogs that mention him, plus various more reputable sites that, when searched with CTRL+F, do not contain the search string "Marty Sammon". There's also this, which gives no indication of reliability, this, which mentions him for "some stellar organ work" on one track, and this, which says he's put out a live CD. Basically, that huge list of sources doesn't add up to very much coverage of Marty Sammon at all, and many of the sources have clearly been added in the hope of putting off good faith users from the long and thankless task of going through them in detail. The New York Times source is particularly egregious, because it would be quite indicative of notability if it contained what the article says it contains. It doesn't. This isn't a good faith, encyclopaedic biography, it's a puff piece. Also, I want my half hour back.—S Marshall T/C 06:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I deleted every reference that doesn't include Sammon's name in it. After, this is a biography of him, I expect the sources to be about him and not some other guy. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. If we then take out the blogs, and then take out every unsupported claim, what do you think is left?—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would the list at User:Michig/How to find sources for popular music articles be helpful? Bearian (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just did a Google news archives search ([1]) and a standard Google search ([2]) and got a mixture of trivial, crap, and other people named "Marty Sammon". I even excluded boxing, judge and referee from the search as there seems to be a boxing ref by that name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the delete votes challenge his qualifying attributes. However, I can understand that the article should be improved. I do question why a couple of the references were removed (on the World Championship Piano site he is listed as a prior champion from 1994/1995). This contest has recognized for 36 years (see the Champions section). The link for Living Proof specifically listed him on the album. He was a member of 2 notable ensembles (Credits on the Library of Congress, PBS, appearances as an expert of his subject matter at universities, he also has several releases under his name, etc). I'm not sure that even if the questionable assertions are subtracted the entire article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwphil (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following statement by S Marshall is presumptuous and adds no substance to the discussion: "..many of the sources have clearly been added in the hope of putting off good faith users from the long and thankless task of going through them in detail." Please qualify "good faith users." There is a suggestion in your statement that the author submitted the article as a "bad faith user". Is that your suggestion? Other individuals have responded with constructive criticism, which I responded to appropriately and have attempted to defend the notability of the subject/article. It is my hope that S Marshall's comments do not represent the collective Wikipedian community's tone. In the same regards, anyone can make unwarranted accusations of intent behind S Marshall's feedback (especially after emotionally discounting blog like comments as "it's a puff piece" "I want my half hour back"). The academic attempts to discredit the article by using Wikipedia guidelines should be considered. Please note there are valid references, some of which are included in accepted submissions on Wikipedia. Please note: Because there is someone else with his name (boxing referee) does not disqualify him.
Comment. Indeed I could verify under the list "Champions" that he he won the World Championship Piano in 1994 and 1995. The link needs to be researched, it won't appear as a separate url. In addition, Donde, since you are the nominator, you have already voted: with this vote you have erroneously voted twice.Divide et Impera (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I voted twice. My initial nomination was purely procedural, as a change from a speedy delete, and I didn't give my personal opinion on it originally. Later I did decide, and voted delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I agree that this is a "wobbler" and that thoughtful arguments have been made for deletion, I have to agree with Bearian and others who recommend keeping the article. When a sideman/session musician performs for so many years alongside musicians such as Otis Rush and Buddy Guy, I believe that they have reached a professional level of accomplishment sufficient that Wikipedia ought to have an article about that musician. Sometimes the cumulative effect of many accomplishments and many brief mentions in reliable sources adds up to notability Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. I know many people hate it when I fall back on "rule of reason" rather than the pseudo-objective standard of Three Glorious Sources from the New York Times as Decreed by the Great Philosophers in Days of Yore — but in this case, it works for me. Wikipedia is better with this article than without it, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marty_Sammon&oldid=1138059405"