Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Burnett


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Burnett

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable (there are many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), and the article is basically a press release. Appears to be written by several related user accounts and IPs whose only edits are to insert Chris Burnett into articles, raising COI and spam issues as well. Special-T 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) WP:IDONTLIKEITWikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. Other editors hate fair use images and text, but again until there is a policy stating that fair use is prohibited the fact that an image is fair use, or an article contains a lot of fair use media, is not grounds for deletion provided fair use criteria are met. Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential. Some may see it as an embarrassment if someone's garage band later enjoy international success, though we cannot yet know this, hence such an article would have little potential. On the other extreme, featured content has emerged from "cruft": a featured list called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc began as an in popular culture section.
 * Weak keep Has, according to the article, won a prize and is affiliated with a label that may make him notable. However, I believe the article needs a lot of trimming per WP:UNDUE, as most of it reads like a resume. I'll avoid trimming this myself in case this article ends up getting deleted. User: (talk • contribs • count) 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions.   -- --Rrburke(talk) 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment His affiliation seems to be with his own record label (see the contributors to the article), negating any claims to notability. - Special-T 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. As written it seems borderline on WP:MUSIC, but does include enough unrelated references to suggest notability. Does need cleanup to be more encyclopedic though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn 5 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you SineBot :( Saturn 5 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, I think too much weight is being given to his self-listed promo. Those 'unrelated references' are: BMI - anyone who's written a song can be an affiliate; a restaurant listing him as playing there; an endorsement of Lomax mouthpieces; membership in IAJE - anyone can join; an entertainment calendar listing - anyone with a gig would be there; a local magazine feature; another gig listing at a local festival; AFM membership - again, anyone can join; and his military service record.  All indicate that he's a working local musician in KC.  All well and good, but not encyclopedic. - Special-T 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence or reliable source that indicates he passes the standard at WP:MUSIC, without which keeping this amounts to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Eusebeus 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article's badly written and promotional, to start with, and there's not a whole lot of sources to go by (note that the BBC link at the bottom refers to a movie character, not this musician). I'm not sure that he quite reaches WP:MUSIC at this time. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find much on this guy on the web that hasn't been written by himself (or rearranged wording written by him), no apparent discography other than a selection of songs he claims royalties on. Once you've dived below the blanket of rhetoric there doesn't seem to be much that meets WP:MUSIC--WebHamster 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. This guy has obviously had a noteworthy career.  I am the intern who posts all of these types of things for their record label.  So, this bio is not "self-listed promo" and anyone making a case to delete is mostly doing so without due consideration of the objective standards at WP:MUSIC.  The man has already had a very distinguished musical career of 22 years in the military and is continuing in the commercial music world.  Keep this and please clean it up, that is what wiki is about.  Knowing the inherent competitive nature of musicians, doesn't anyone else find it particularly curious that a saxophone player started this campaign.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the jazz world, there are not (many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), especially in the major US jazz market cities like Kansas City - New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, New Orleans, etc. Add the factor Chris Burnett's military music career and you have another element of note because only a small number of musicians and people qualify for military bands at any level (some qualify as individuals, but not as musicians and some qualify as musicians, but not as individuals - the number who qualify in both areas is small).  Any adding of Chris Burnett's name to sections at wikipedia were done by me to cross reference, not spam.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 1- I made no subjective judgments about quality of his music - that is not the issue here. 2- Extrapolating from the number of excellent jazz musicians working in the small-market-for-jazz city where I live (guys who have played with Ellington, Maria Schneider, Aretha, Wynton, the list is nearly endless, and many who have had long careers in military service bands), it is reasonable to extrapolate to, yes, thousands of such musicians in the country. 3- The conflict of interest issues here are pretty obvious - you, an employee of his record label, deem him to have a noteworthy career. Maybe he does, but by Wikipedia policy, the judgment of someone in that position should not be the basis of deciding notability, and I didn't think the press-release-style article proved it adequately.  That's why the article is listed here - not because I don't like someone or his music. And, since you've accused me of some personal/professional pettiness in listing this article here, you might want to take a look at WP:No personal attacks. Let's stick to the policy, notability, and conflict-of-interest issues. - Special-T 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for clarification of your position. Believe me, I am as objective as anyone and I am not an employee or biased in the manner you imply.  This listing has been here for more than a year.  It has survived vandalism and if the pointedness of my remarks are taken as attacks on you, they are not meant to be.  It is just easy to sit in the position of anonymous judge and jury in a paradigm like this.  Whatever is decided is cool.  I don't even think that he looks at this anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, whatever the community decides is cool - well said. Just working for a better Wikipedia. - Special-T 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.