Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Prophet

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. J04n(talk page) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Prophet

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, far more name dropping and piggybacking than citing to RS to establish individual notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article certainly has lots of peacock language that could be toned down, but Prophet has been a relatively well-known name in alternative music in the US for over thirty years. He has a detailed AllMusic bio [1] and interviews in Billboard [2] and the Chicago Tribune [3], for starters. Richard3120 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI - a question was asked regarding how an artist can get added to an AllMusic.com bio, and their response follows: Artist information such as photos, written biographies, discographies, credits, group membership, similar artists and other musician-related data come from our data provider, Rovi (now called TiVo). Please see the details on submitting information to them on our Product Submissions page. TiVo tries to add artist information, but can't make any promises about which artists and titles will receive this level of enhanced editorial coverage. However, you may send them your information for consideration by following the steps on the Product Submissions page. That method is not too unlike a Google collection of info, or FB collection of info. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible article, but the guy seems notable. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, too, Drmies - at first. I'm still digging, looking for solid RS that will establish his notability beyond what appears to be a limited cult/fan following, but all I'm finding is the ocassional "staged promotional" interview and various "about me interviews", and lots of passing mention. I saw this one NYTimes article linked to a Green on Red album but he only gets passing mention as lead guitar. He has 3 blue linked albums (independent lables/self-produced) and they probably won't pass N if nominated. Maybe all-totaled as a body of work, it might be a borderline pass, but I'm not finding enough notable associations for that, either. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person's works have been reviewed in multiple reliable publications: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. There's a chapter about him in this book. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 01:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review the sources you listed and refer to WP:N (music) which requires multiple, non-trivial sources. Listing reviews of songs does not meet the requirement: This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. A cursory Google search proves nothing - we have to take the time to review the sources to see if they pass N (music). ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. That quote in bold is from WP:NSONG, which helps outline criteria for standalone articles on individual songs, not musicians. I reviewed the above sources prior to listing them and find them to clearly illustrate non-trivial coverage of the subject. I'm happy to agree to disagree. gongshow talk 23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage exists. He's obviously notable given even a cursory Google search. I'm really getting sick of wasting my time on nominations like this. --Michig (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (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.