Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Gulotta

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) 03:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gulotta[edit]

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

This is not the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources. The sources that exist give scant coverage to his accomplishments and other biographically significant details — there's precious little that could be cobbled into an encyclopedic biography regarding this subject, from basic personal facts to the actual significance of his accomplishments. Groups and individuals (e.g. publications by or for Daniel Amos) he has been involved with are insufficient to indicate any notability, and the subject fails WP:GNG. The comparatively higher standard of WP:ANYBIO is even more distant. Finally, WP:MUSICBIO doesn't normally apply to producers, but in this case even if it did, the subject would fare no better. His accomplishments/positions in academia also far fall short of WP:ACADEMIC. JFHJr (㊟) 00:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In terms of a producer, if he made a significant impact, say, like Phil Spector (who I think was accepted into the Hall of Fame) then I'd see him as notable. There'd be many independent, verifiable sources with coverage of him and his works. All I see is myspace stuff, some imdb but not much else. So doesn't pass WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - And only if reliable sources are added and the article improved. This article has been open since 2006. And not much improved. Provide a deadline then delete if need be. If he is really notable then it can be re-written. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources or guidelines support your !keep? What claims to notability are there at all, sources aside? The deadline is pretty much the week that AfDs remain open, unless the debate is re-listed. You've stated the general rationale for voting !keep, and you've apparently made your vote conditional/hypothetical ("only if reliable sources are added"), but the conditions for your vote don't seem to have been fulfilled... JFHJr (㊟) 23:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline delete/redirect per Jrcrin001's argument above. There's the hint of a decent article here, but it requires some more reliable sources asserting Gulotta's independent notability in his field can be found. If not, I'd say make this a redirect to Stunt Records and add a line there about Gulotta being a producer in his own right. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, I think this name is an implausible search term. As one of apparently three founders (another of whom is not notable), it's hard to measure this person's importance to that article's content especially against the relative importance of the artists and albums associated by the label. Currently, content at Stunt Records indicates a redirect would be undue; see also WP:R#DELETE criterion 4. JFHJr (㊟) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact is, the sources that we've found don't indicate notability. He's a producer--great. He's worked with some famous people--wonderful. I've pointed out that if he distinguished himself as such (e.g. Phil Spector) we'd have something here. But we don't. I'm sick of these comments on AfD "keep, because if there are some things added, it'll be better." Well, if my grandmother's brisket recipe is an article and it is sourced with some great independent, verfiable sources, and then Bill Clinton tries it and loves it and tells CNN he has given up being a vegan because this brisket is the best he has ever had and thank the lord for it, then this brisket would have an article. But, that hasn't happened. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My vote was delete - but I do believe there needs to be a clearer line on notability for producers, because I'd absolutely dispute your assertion that Phil Spector (or being voted into the Hall of Fame) is the benchmark. There doesn't seem to be a relevant guideline or section of WP:MUSIC, but my own interpretation obviously has the threshold considerably lower than you do; for me, if an individual has produced numerous records for notable artists, and if there are RS verifying their reputation (either directly, "Jane Doe is one of Estonia's most prominent producers working in the throat jazz genre today", or indirectly, "Fred Notable-Artist said: 'We're so glad to work with Jane Doe on this new album, we loved her work with Other Notable-Artist'"), then in the absence of guidance to the contrary, I'll vote !keep every single time. For the avoidance of doubt, Gulotta doesn't appear to meet that standard, but apparently for me he's not as far short as for you, hence my being open to changing my mind if more sources are found to back up the article's claims of notability - not quite the same thing as voting to keep the brisket article in case of future celebrity endorsement! ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:10, 16 August 2012 (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.