Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddie Sessler


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Freddie Sessler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded by User:Edwardx. I stand by my original concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. One single deep coverage source, a fanzine does not seem sufficient." A second source seems to have in depth coverage, a New York Post article at, but I don't think that one mainstream press article, one fanzine, and a few mentions in passing are sufficient. This is an article that may belong on a Rolling Stones wikia, but not on Wikipedia, with our notability rules. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes general notability rule. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Care to elaborate? Because I think he easily fails it. Hence, your argument was debunked using exactly as much effort as you put into it. Plus, your point fails WP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:ASSERTN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Not everyone gets a NYT obituary. Edwardx (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Care to elaborate? Because I think he doesn't pass it; your statement is a simple WP:ASSERTN. Plus, you made an error - New York Post is not New York Times.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per above reasons. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:MAJORITY is not a valid reason to post. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 06:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Analysis of refs: #2 with 9 links is a web site, not a published article. It should not be included at all as it is not a reliable reference. #3 is about him, but is from the NY Post, which has a very poor reputation. Ditto #6, Daily Mail, plus that article merely mentions Freddie in passing. He is mentioned 12 times in Richards' book, on one page in Ronnie Woods' book, 4 times in David Bowie:Starman, 8 times in the Richards unauthorized biography. Considering how many people were at one time in the Stones' entourage, this does not single out this person for notability. LaMona (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why was this relisted again? Isn't it a clear no-consensus by now? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to get consensus than to close as "no consensus", Anyway no harm in relisting for another week, Cheers, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The first two Keeps are by the primary editors of the article (isn't this supposed to be stated up front when posting AfD comments?), who haven't cited any specific policy reasons—one has claimed a New York Times obituary when the article doesn't source either the Times or any obituary, and hasn't bothered to correct it—and the third Keep is by an editor whose entire Wikipedia editing experience was a week in which 57 edits, every single one on AfDs, were made. This strikes me as extremely weak support for retaining the article. While the analyses by Piotrus and LaMona's seem generally good (the fanzine cannot be deemed a WP:RS, for all it casts doubt on many facts in the other major source), I have to point out that the New York Post source is not an article but an official excerpt from a 2009 book, Under Their Thumb by Bill German, published by Random House. As such, its reliability not as easily dismissed as LaMona would have it, but it doesn't seem sufficient for notability. (The same appears to be true of the Daily Mail, where the excerpt was from Ronnie Wood's autobiography, but as LaMona notes Sessler's mentioned once in passing.) Sessler seems to have been a character, but that doesn't make him notable, and it's evident that he embroidered stories about himself. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding: I don't see sufficient evidence that Sessler meets WP:GNG; he certainly doesn't qualify under WP:BASIC. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I am puzzled by the statement that he doesn't meet GNG or BASIC. If I may quote BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The evidence cited by LaMona and BlueMoonset doesn't actually support their delete votes. By LaMona's count:
 * Mentioned 12 times in Richards' Life, Back Bay Books, 2010.
 * Once in Ronnie Wood's Ronnie, Pan Books, 2008.
 * 4 times in Trynka's Starman: David Bowie - The Definitive Biography, Hachette, 2011
 * 8 times in Bockris's Keith Richards: The unauthorised biography, Omnibus Press, 2011.
 * plus:
 * Multiple mentions in German's Under Their Thumb, published by Random House.
 * Daily Mail
 * Rolling Stone
 * Glenn Hughes autobiography.
 * Fan sites and Bonhams.
 * Sessler certainly was inclined to exaggerate his own life but that is a matter to be dealt with in the article (which it has been) and doesn't affect notability. I suspect that there is some personal distaste for the subject creeping in here, even a feeling that the article is disrespectful to the Rolling Stones in some way? I may be wrong. If Sessler was a reputable character, one of their managers for instance, would there be any question as to his notability? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Philafrenzy The problem is that these are "mentions." That Sessler was in a room with Keith Richards or that he said a single sentence is not much about him. He was a hanger on who never did anything but be a hanger on - unless you can find something that makes him notable as himself. Tchaikovsky is also mentioned in the book, but if that were the only evidence we had of notability, he would not have a WP page. There are literally dozens of people named in these books. The ones who have WP pages are not there because of these mentions, they have been written about for their own accomplishments or notability. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I only used the word mention because you did, clearly some of the coverage is far more than mentions, for instance there is a whole chapter just about him in Under Their Thumb, titled "rock 'n' roll rasputin" that was the source of the New York Post extracts. (Thanks to BlueMoonset) Do a search using the look inside feature here. Several of the others seem to go further than just mentions too, but put it all together and you have notability.
 * You could call him a hanger on, but as Ronnie Wood, who should know, put it "Freddie's real claim to fame was that he'd spent decades providing pharmaceuticals to everybody who was anybody in rock." Given the importance of a ready supply of drugs to certain people I would argue that far from being a hanger-on, he was essential, which is no doubt why they kept him around for decades. Incidentally, thanks to BlueMoonset I found more coverage in Julia Phillips' You'll Never Eat Lunch in this Town Again where she says "Freddie who seems to be very important to everybody." which I have added. I am sure there is more. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2014 (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.