Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Pierce


 * 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. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. All delete opinions came before sources were provided and nominator has withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Pierce

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article has been in existence since April 2007 without a discussion at AfD. I'm not sure how! Edited primarily by a username that suggests a WP:COI, sourced to facebook and myspace, no indication that it passes WP:MUSICBIO and my searches draw a blank for sources to pass WP:GNG Mechanical digger (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the other delete votes make this a bit moot, I withdraw the nomination based on the sources found below. Thanks to Cunard and Hekerui for finding the sources and cleaning up the article. Mechanical digger (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Listed at Category:AfD_debates_(Biographical) and Category:AfD debates (Media and music) Mechanical digger (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC) This article was edited today by a reliable source to Chris Pierce. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holliston444 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) — Holliston444 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * weak delete. Does not seem notable enough. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NM, WP:V, and WP:COI. So full of WP:PEACOCK it made nauseous; much of it is identical to his self-promotional MySpace page. Most of the editing was done by SPAs or near-SPAs. Cresix (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep His Allmusic biography sources some of the content (albums, tour with Seal, song use) reliably, the San Antonio Express-News mention him opening for B.B. King, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the The Press-Enterprise profiled Pierce, and there are more mentions of concert openings in the Google News archive. Hekerui (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Having an "album" or two these days can mean very little. I suspect any albums are self-produced, which is easy to do with a few dollars worth of technology. If I'm wrong, someone needs to indicate a record label other than "Pierce Records" or "Entak Records", neither of which has a Wikipedia article. I searched Amazon.com and found none of his music for sale (they have a wide selection if you include downloads). Google his name and about all you get is his own self-promotion. He is welcome to have a Facebook page, but I don't consider Wikipedia an appropriate place for him to promote himself. Cresix (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we argue about notability here, not whether an autobio page needs to be restructured. I'm certainly for a cleanup. Hekerui (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And my point is this person does not meet criteria for notablity as a musician. No national chart positions either as performer or songwriter. Mention in a couple of newspaper/website articles as "opening" for another performer does not qualify as "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". No major awards. No "rotation nationally by any major radio network". In short, not notable and using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Cresix (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability (music) states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." The sources provided by confirm that Chris Pierce has received such requisite nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Therefore, Chris Pierce passes both Notability (music) and Notability Cunard (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources provided by have definitively established that Chris Pierce is notable. This article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and this article from The Press-Enterprise, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, provide substantial coverage of Pierce. As evinced by the titles of these newspaper articles ("The Fortunate One; Chance Encounter Leads Pierce to Tour with Seal" and "His music's got soul: 'Static Trampoline' has attracted attention to Chris Pierce"), Pierce is the articles' main subject. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He does not meet criterion 1 of WP:NM. I'll repeat, mention in a few articles that he opened for a notable performer does not make Pierce notable. The fact that a newspaper that mentions him is "a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper" is totally irrelevant. The newspaper didn't win a Pulitzer because of their coverage of Pierce. Pulitzer winning newspapers report marriages and obituaries of thousands of people every year, but that doesn't mean those people should have Wikipedia articles. Cresix (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage of Chris Pierce in those reliable sources is far more than a few mentions as I demonstrated in my initial rationale. Therefore, he passes criterion 1 of WP:NM. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am working on Chris Pierce which is currently an unsourced BLP. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the reliable sources to the article and removed unsourced possibly contentious content from the article per BLP. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So we have one source exclusively about him, and three others that mention him in the context of touring with or opening for someone. If that is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" then there are several million musicians who have never had a major chart position or recorded on a major record label who should have articles added to Wikipedia. It seems that everyone is notable for something and should have a Wikipedia article. I once was featured in a newspaper article because I hosted KC and the Sunshine Band one evening when they performed nearby. I think I'll start an article on myself. Cresix (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The two sources I mentioned in my initial keep rationale are specifically about him. Add this to the coverage found by and notability is established. Wikipedia is not paper, so all musicians who have received the requisite significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are considered notable. Cunard (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only concerned with what's in the article; not what has been mentioned here but has not been added to the article. OK, so I'll stand corrected. We have two sources about him, and two that mention he toured with or opened for another performer (and maybe a few words about him). So, all I need to do is find one more article about my hosting KC and the Sunshine Band (maybe with some discussion that I jammed with him in his hotel room) and I have the requisite two sources to declare that I am the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", then I proceed to write an article about myself. Me and about five million more aspiring musicians. Cresix (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, no hyperbole. You long for a cleanup that gives an overview over the actually relevant points? Please be invited to do it :) Best regard Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense (seriously), but I have much trouble comprehending your meaning in the last two sentences above ("you long for a cleanup"??? -- maybe it's just me), but I have not engaged in hyperbole. So please, no hyperbole about hyperbole. As I understand Cundard's reasoning, having two newspaper articles about a person in the context of their musical endeavors is sufficient to meet the criterion "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and thus sufficient for their notability as a musician in a Wikipedia article. Once that standard is met, no need to worry about chart positions, recording on major labels, headlining a nationwide tour, writing a major hit for Mariah Carey, or any of the other standards I have used to decide if someone is a notable musician. Cresix (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an accurate reflection of my reading of WP:NM. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, in my opinion, a grossly distorted and overinclusive interpretation. Everyone is not notable. If they were, there would be no need to have Wikipedia guidelines for notability, and Wikipedia would become a magnet for millions of otherwise non-notable people to create articles about themselves. Cresix (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Since this is a BLP and is being worked on another week's discussion would be useful. 


 * Keep: Based on his press coverage: He and his album Static Trampoline also received mentions in the Boston Herald, Los Angeles Times and Winston Salem Journal. Eudemis (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. I added a couple more citations as well. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 3 November 2010 (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.