Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Weidner

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Weidner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Stub on record engineer and producer, fails GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article was a stub, but I've just done a bunch of work to expand it. Well, it's still stub-y, but it's a lot better than it was, if I do say so myself. I note that Weidner was co-nominated for an engineering Grammy, so that counts as notable under WP:MUSIC #8, I think. He has an extensive CV that can be demonstrated by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but unfortunately none of these added sources help in terms of establishing notability. Every single one is a brief passing mention in an article about something or someone else. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy nom/WP:MUSIC #8? Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That criteria applies to musicians, not to record technicians/producers. He is not a performer. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I also note that the article lists albums on which Weidner performs. He is a performer and a producer/engineer. Nor can I quite see why we should favour one category of Grammy awards over another. (The Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical section at the 37th Annual Grammy Awards for work on a hugely popular album counts for nothing, but Best Polka Album nominations would be automatic keeps?) Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the best Polka album Grammy would not be an automatic keep, it still needs sources to write an article. Weidner was nominated but did not win. For a producer who actually won a Grammy but was deleted for lack of info see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Sullivan. Kraxler (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed even with these added sources, of somewhat questionable reliability, the article is still a stub. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sullivan is a different case. He did not win a Grammy. Rather, an album he produced won a Grammy, as the AfD discussion points out. Weidner was specifically (co-)nominated for his engineering work, rather than merely being the engineer on a nominated or winning album. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, Sullivan expressly won the Grammy as the producer of the record, per the sources. What some users at AfD make of that is irrelevant. Sullivan produced the album as much as Weidner sound-engineered his nominated one. I see always people receiving the little statues, Oscars, Grammys, Tonys, whatever, the albums don't show up to get the award and say a few words. And Weidner did not win. Kraxler (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The album won the Best New Age Album award. The Grammy site lists the artist (Laura Sullivan, his wife) and producer (Eric Sullivan) for the album, as it does for all albums that win. I think most people would recognise that a best album award is a clear point of notability for the album and the artist, but not necessarily for anyone else who worked on it. I would presume Laura Sullivan was the person who showed up to get the award, but I don't know what happened in that case, and I'm guessing you don't either! That is a rather different situation, I suggest, than a specific award for engineering, as Weidner was co-nominated for. Nor do I see anything in WP:MUSIC #8 that supports the interpretation put forth here by Kraxler: for example, WP:MUSIC #8 requires nomination, not winning. I quote, "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the proccedings were changed around 2007, and now the producer appears at the ceremony and gets a statuette, at the Grammys; that's what people said at the AfD, maybe I should watch it next year... You are right that some nominations carry inherent notability, like Oscar nominations. The wording of the guideline is a bit vague, but I'd rather hear more opinions on whether a Grammy nomination does also. The fact remains that there is no coverage on Weidner, no biographical detail anywhere to be found, and not asingle in-depth source which discusses Weidner. All refs are about other topics, and just barely mention his existence. And thus we are back to the Sullivan case. Instead of running around in circles we should wait for more !votes here. Kraxler (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, in this day and age of declining editor numbers, we can wait a long time to get more votes... Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes come in mostly when it goes in to the "old AfDs" section, and is not closed. I think the previous relistings were a bit hasty. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep simply because he seems to have enough solidity to be accepted for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of the refs is in-depth, it's always just the most trivial mention, once somewhere in a whole long interview or article, nominated for Grammy but did not win, no biographical info anywhere available, fails soundly WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While none of the refs are in-depth, the number of them, in my opinion, meets WP:BASIC, per the "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" clause. And while being nominated for the Grammy does meet #8 of the criteria, we still have to bear in mind that meeting one of the criteria only means the person "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". However, combined with the numerous mentions, I think that puts this person over the edge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you left out the second half of that sentence in BASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Then there's a footnote, elaborating a bit on the point. By any reasonable criteria the references to this person in the sourcing is trivial. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2015 (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.