Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Williams

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Williams[edit]

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

Notability outside of groups not established. Google search did not help the cause either. Fixer23 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know some editors may feel that she is part of two notable bands and thus her article should stay, but I plan to nominate those group articles for deletion in the near future as they do not seem to be notable either. Also, this article is not likely to ever be expanded (at least in the foreseeable future).Fixer23 (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I made this, back when I had high hopes for Wikipedia. But, let's face it, Wikipedia is a failure. Nobody is going to edit this again, except maybe to vandalize it. Fewer people are editing Wikipedia all the time. And if it is vandalized, nobody will bother doing anything to fix it. Please feel free to go through my contributions and delete anything else you wish. I won't bother debating notability, because nobody knows what that means. It is whatever a few people who show up at AFDs think it is, and then the random admin shows up,and makes a decision based on whatever they feel like. On a side note, the nominator has removed most of the small content of the article with the verbose description of "cleanup". I only mention that, to illustrate what a failure this place is, and what will be normal editing for an article like this. I know the article doesn't live up to current BLP requirements, but those requirements keep changing, and people make an article at one point,to have it fail future requirements. But, nobody is going to go back and fix all the old articles. So, to trash it is. --Rob (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to take all this less personally. Notability of group members differs from solo artists. Sarcastically remarking on my cleanup isn't going to help you and you're case of the failure of wikipedia. I removed all information that pertains to the group to illustrate that the subject has not done anything outside of the group. If that is information is grounds for an article why don't all of the members of PYT have an article? If you made an article that is of questionable notability then (as I'm sure it was), of course it's going to be deleted in the future. There's no point in having so many articles of individuals that are not likely to rise to notability and whose articles are likely to remain as stubs even after they "retire". Chill.Fixer23 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "sarcastic". I'm actually quite fine with deletion, and might even do a mass PRODing and/or nomination of other articles I made, if I find an efficient way of doing so (though I hope others will simply do it for me). You keep arguing for against a non-existant position. Notice how I didn't put back the content your removed. If I cared for it, I obviously would have. I figure you've obviously gotten invested enough in this, that you'll do me a favour and remove many other articles, that I now see no use for. --Rob (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me describing one word as "verbose" isn't sarcasm? Anyway, I'm confused as to why you are upset over the "demise" of wikipedia and its everchanging polices when you agree that such articles have no use. You could have just supported without interjecting your own take on why wikipedia is dying which in this case you feel doesn't even have to do with the nomination. You brought it up.Fixer23 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - pointy cleanup and nomination. Being a member of a notable musical group is one of the factors of artistic notability. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy you cited, the artist has to have done things of note outside of their band, being in one doesn't automatically make them notable.Fixer23 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non vote and a comment. I definitely do not agree with the practice of "cleaning up" an article, and then nominating it for deletion, even though it happens all the time...and I'm sure your intentions were good...it just seems like a slippery slope IMO. The Eskimo (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind next time. I'll just state what I removed so other editors will know. I removed about 3 lines of accomplishments of her first band (not hers, she has no reported notable activity outside of her bands)[1] as someone cited that (the fact that she had been on tour with other notable artists as part of the band) as grounds for keep. Just trying to highlight the fact that she has not done anything of note as an individual.Fixer23 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of two notable bands. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But both bands' notability are questionable at best.Fixer23 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say barely notable, not questionable. thats still notable. (others may disagree, currently being tested at AFD, if either close delete, my opinion here is not the consensus so my !vote here would be wrong and should be put aside.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Member of two non-notable bands. Abductive (reasoning) 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP and per Abductive. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:28, 30 November 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.