Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker McGee

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 no consensus. Votes and arguments roughly split. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parker McGee[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this entry fail WP:MUSBIO exactly? According to "Criteria for composers and lyricists", a composer may be notable if they have; "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." England Dan and John Ford Coley's "I'd Really Love To See You Tonight" charted in 1976 on Billboard's Year-End Hot 100 for that year, at the #21 position.
Your assertion that this composer's entry also fails WP:ANYBIO, seems to also be negated, based upon the above information. (This composer's work IS part of the enduring historical record of 1970's popular music.) As for the WP:BIO concern, this can easily be overcome through diligent research and editing by any interested contributor. Edit Centric talk 00:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be able to be fixed, but it's very poorly sourced and promotional. I could blank most of the article per WP:BLP. I'm not saying the topic shouldn't have an article, but as it stands, it just doesn't cut it. Also see WP:TNT. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 19:56, 1 May 2016 (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.