Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sanders (musician)


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris Sanders (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

When an article is proposed for deletion, it is not meant to punish but instead can be an opportunity to improve the article. Yes, it is possible that the article could be deleted, but it is also very possible that the article could be improved and kept. In this case it appears that the proposed deletion notice was removed without an appropriate response, no reasons being provided for keeping the article, no specific objections to the proposed deletion.

The references for the article as they now stand are not reliable, MySpace, YouTube and liner-notes are not considered to be independent. Third party sources are more appropriate for Wikipedia. The 'fan' tag was placed on the article because of the general tone...for instance, the article called the artist "the God of Shred" without citing any news stories or industry sources to stand behind that nickname. (See fan pages for an explanation of how the pages' tone can appear to outsiders.)

Please post any of your thoughts about the article's possible deletion (or about the 'fan'/'reference' templates) here at the deletion discussion.
 * Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  03:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

*Delete per nomination (pending possible improvements). Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Struck;moving to keep, see updated comment below
 * Delete for lack of reliable sources and becuase page author didn't fill in the background field in the infobox. Seriously, how frakking hard is it to follow instructions? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Keep per added sources. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

VancoD (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC) As someone publishing their first wiki page, I will tell you that it's actually pretty frakking hard to follow the eleventy-billion esoteric instructions to put content into a page. But thanks for your kind, gentle guidance and the nomination to delete the page.

I did, in fact, use another Wiki page for a template - the one from Jimi Hendrix if for no other reason than he's a guitarist and I liked the layout of the page. Other than the detailed content available for Hendrix the format is literally the same between the 2 pages.

Does an artist have to achieve some sales or publication status before biographical content goes from fan page to fact????

I remain unclear on what is an "appropriate resource" to validate the existence of a performing artist. He's been in videos, he's on several pieces of recorded media an his name can be found in "the credits". I feel like I'm being told I have to prove that a fish is a fish. I just have no idea how I'm going to provide a satisfactory reference to backup the "facts" as presented.

I get the part about removing the "God of Shred" reference, that was his wife's call (and it's now gone). But I feel I'm being accused of making up a persona or something - the guy is merely a working musician looking to have a presence on Wikipedia. He asked me to make the page for him. I honestly don't get what sources I'm supposed to site to prove the guy is a guitar player who's been in some arguably well-known bands.
 * Improve or Delete: WP:MUSICBIO is the test here. Sanders appears to have been a member of a notable band, Lizzie Borden but the links in his article should all go to that article, as opposed to the murderess, and it would also help if that article linked back to him, although the band's article doesn't mention Sanders otherwise than as a current member in the infobox, which isn't good enough. Some copyediting and pruning of self-published sources would help, as would the plethora of product endorsements, which are promotional, cheap and unnecessary. Needs a shedload of work to remain credible. Rodhull  andemu  23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am posting some useful links that deal with these issues on your talkpage. I am reserving my judgement on this one until we see what can be found.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Improve or delete: I did make edits to the article, such as making more appropriate picture captions and removing some external link violations. However, this person is part of one band with a wikipedia article, while the other listing of associated acts in his infobox is that of one person. There may be notablilty problems about that, considering how wikipedia counts notability for musicians as being part of at least two notable bands or part of one band while having maintained a solo career. Further improvement would be reasonable to implement on this article, if it should be kept. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: First, to those of you that have posted some useful links on my talk page - thank you. These look extremely helpful in understanding appropriate content and form, and I will start to read over them.  Regarding endorsements as "promotional, cheap and unnecessary": Promotional I can sort of agree with. Cheap and unnecessary are decidedly opinion. As a musician myself, I happen to enjoy knowing what a particular guitar player uses to get their sound.  But to the point - if links to Wikipedia sources seem to be what this page needs to be all about, cannot the endorsements be left in place if they instead point to the Wikipedia entries for said products or companies? There are pages here dedicated to Jackson guitars, GHS strings, etc, etc. I would again state that the Hendrix page has entries for both the Stratocaster and the amps he used - is this acceptable "endorsement"? I will continue to look towards making the page more compliant.VancoD (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (amongst others, my search for Chris Sanders and Lizzy Borden got nothing). Other things VancoD should consider are conflict of interest and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix The subject seems notable in significant coverage from reliable sources. The conflict of interest can be overcome and the promotional tone can be corrected to an encyclopedic tone. Therefore the article is correctable within normal editing processes. Items 9 and 10 here indicate a less antagonistic method of correcting might have been preferred. The silver lining to this WP:AfD is that it should emerge a much better biography. While Chris Sanders is not Jimi Hendrix, in that he is still playing guitar, he is Chris Sanders, a notable guitarist, whose biography can nothing but improve Wikipedia as a whole.  My 76 Strat  19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but continue to improve Have been able to find several more sources, they have now been added to the article.  The article is in much better shape from its first incarnations and if more references/sources can be found and added to the article by interested parties, that can only help.  Making it harder for historians of the rocker/metal/band genre (and as I have discovered during my most recent research), the various permutations of band line-ups and other facts aren't always recorded in great detail for posterity.

I regret any hard feelings the AfD has engendered, that was not my intent. Shearonink (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete ... looks more like a promotion than an encyclopedia entry. As I read it I just kept thinking ".. and who cares.." Tommy!  [ message ] 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who cares if an article exist is not an inclusion criteria, significant coverage in reliable sources is and the criteria has been met. To elaborate there are many who care to see such articles, like me for example and others. But again, opinions to this regard don't matter, coverage does.  My 76 Strat  20:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I lean as more inclusionist myself but that article just goes on about seemingly unimportant trivia data, thus leading me to want it be deleted. Tommy!  [ message ] 22:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and continue to improve The Wikipedia page as written, in my opinion, does not explain qualifying notability that exists. If references are now being found, it is important to develop the article. VancoD identified that this was the first article that he has created. His statement about the difficulty in coming up to speed in writing articles is true. A guiding hand with encouragement is what is needed.
 * Articles for creation can be a very useful means of bringing an article to live status. It is advertised as being beneficial for those without user accounts, however, it is also very beneficial for editors with accounts. Issues such as those being discussed here can be worked out behind the scenes prior to going live. Doc2234 (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but drastically prune until improved. I've laid out my thoughts in Talk:Chris Sanders (musician), as they would be too long and intrusive here. Acabashi (talk) 13:10, 10 August 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.