Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggie Young

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The result was Withdrawn per cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Young[edit]

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

Spammy, non-neutral tone. Questionable notabilit; worked with notable artists but that doesn't mean inherited notability. Sources are CD Baby, a directory listing on Allmusic, an Elvis fansite and a Netherlands rockabilly fansite. If notable, WP:TNT and start over. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough dedicated articles, such as this one in Premier Guitar, along with many mentions in various music publications, to establish notability. Needs a clean up, taking back to stub if necessary, but deletion is not appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to clean up the article, and I'm ashamed that I've not heard of this guy. Eric Clapton listed Reggie as one of his most influential and favorite guitar players - and mentions him in his autobiography as "one of the best guitarists I had ever heard". Interesting. Some of my favourite tunes have been played by this man - that wonderful opening to Son of a Preacher Man was Reggie Young! SilkTork *^YES! 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a notable session musician. Certainly appears in many boks about music production in Memphis. [1] and [2] are some examples. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, speedy close. A purposefully disruptive nomination of an article subject whose notability is unquestionable. It is clear that the nominator made not the slightest effort to assess the notability of the article subject, or to review the article history, or he would have noticed that recent changes by an inexperienced user had caused the problems he was so quick to complain about. AFD is a poor choice of action when a simple "undo" would resolve most of the problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:31, 25 September 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.