Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Griggs

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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Griggs[edit]

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

This entry was a mess. I have gone through it carefully and systematically to create a more neautral tone and to order and express it properly. The problem is that, despite a genuine desire to demonstrate notability through a net search, I remain unconvinced that Mr Griggs warrants a Wikipedia page. Other views will be appreciated. GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source might support some of the claims. There may be other sources in dutch [1][2][3][4], etc. I guess I'd give it a somewhat weak keep. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like a fair amount of new work has been done--some of it by the nominator. So perhaps, the question is, would he like to withdraw the nomination? -MrFizyx (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator and I confess that I've been trying to turn this into a stronger page not because I necessarily think that the page is important, but mainly because I had hoped to find sources for accomplishments by this man that would be genuinely notable. I respected the fact that Mr Griggs had, according to the few sources I can find, struggled to make a living out of music for decades without much public success or notability. His only moment of semi-notability occurred when he was part of Guys n' Dolls, a group that had a bit of success. Hence, looking at his long career as a whole, I'm still very unsure. I want to say keep but think that at best all I can say, if I’m being generous, is a weak keep. If I'm being totally honest, ignoring my respect for the man's tenacity, I stand by my deletion nomination GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 06:45, 5 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 April 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing that appears to be notable about this musician is that he almost made it on a serial basis. No cigar. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information available about the early work with the other two bands is very worth mentioning even when talking about him at Guys_'n'_Dolls, and it very well may be placed in a separate article as it is done with some of the other members that have also produced material. There's no need to crowd one page when there's more than enough than can be said about him separately. Several of the claims have to be sourced of course, but actually they're mostly claims about Guys 'n' Dolls and not about him personally - frankie^MR (talk) 00:08, 15 April 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.