Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gman Blues


 * 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 Delete. I'm going out on a limb here and being bold. There us no concrete assertion of notability (at least nothing that is verifiable, the number of Ghits is low and there is a question over whether the article was self written. Malla  nox  17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gman Blues

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nickname of non-notable musician Gary Wesselhoff, who obviously has no article of his own. There are some Ghits of Wesselhoff as a writer, but nothing substantial as a performer. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep/Redirect – Sorry to disagree, I believe he has established notability based on these hits in Google as shown here, In particular this article; .  However, the Wikipedia article should be redirected to Gary Wesselhoff and the article posted there.  In addition, it does need a complete rewrite and should be tagged as such.  Happy New Year Shoessss |  Chat  17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)     Shoessss |  Chat  17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I agree with you the article should be at Gary Wesselhoff. We have a precident for putting articles at the name a person was most well known as in the field they were involved in (e.g. Mark Twain and George Eliot) whether or not that is their real name (i.e. not Samuel Langhorne Clemens or Mary Ann Evans). If the article were to be keep, I think it should stay where it is and be rewritten. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took a look at the article Shoesss said was particularly noteworth on ChicagoMusicGuide.com. I noticed the author of the article was simply listed as "Staff Writer" so I took a look at the site to see if they had a list of their staff writers and, wouldn't you know, Gary Wesselhoff is one of those Staff Writers. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took another look and realized this is his staff writer biography. That defnitely knocks this out of the nobility field for me. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This one was a tough one for me. One the one hand, Shoesss is right that there are eleven pages of Google hits for the mans name. On the other hand, on looking at some of the hits I found two trends: 1) Many of the hits are not for him at all but for an author of the same name. 2) Many were links to Myspace-ish networking sites for musicians. 3) Of those which were actually articles on the musician, most that I looked at were written by the musician himself. I was not able to find an independent article about the musician. In addition, the username which created the article only made one edit in October, to create the article in question, which leads me to speculate this may have been the musician once again self-promoting himself. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Still Keep - Even with Redfarmer (talk) objections. The “Chicago Music Guild” is a verifiable and reliable source.  Do we penalize the individual because he is on staff there?  I assume, and as far as I know the protocol for every newspaper is that a writer submits his piece to the associate editor for that section who must approve or disapprove.  The piece is than passed to the editor of the section for the same decision.  At that point it is typically passed to an independent editor for a thumbs up or down.  Than finally published.  I see no collusion or cabal here.  By the way Happy New Year All. Shoessss |  Chat  14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's "Chicago Music Guide," not "Chicago Music Guild." The site seems to be a local Chicago Web Zine which features a few articles on music but mostly reviews of musical acts which have played in Chicago. Their mission statement seems to imply they don't discriminate between notability or not, as their mission is to help "all musicians," and, indeed, the only act I see they review which has any national/international notability is Avenged Sevenfold, who apparently played a show in Chicago recently. I really fail to see how an staff writer's bio on a local web zine, coupled with self-written articles strewn across the net, establishes the person's notability as a musican. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, just to press the issue a little further, his writer bio, besides saying he's a musicain, also says he's been a "Recording Engineer, Network Analyst, and Lead Sound and Stage Carpenter." Do you think a writer's bio on a local web zine would establish his notability in any of those fields? If not, why do you think it establishes his notability as a musician? -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - LOL, I admit I am an incluetionist! Yes a made up word. I always question any individual editors imperious opinion that an article should be deleted.  My feelings have always been, “ when in doubt KEEP. Shoessss |  Chat  15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But I don't think there're any doubts here. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete A7 (and tagged as such) - authoring a web zine and signing up for networking sites in between fits of self-promotion does not make a musician notable. The article makes utterly no claim of notability, and could even be tagged under somewhat liberal interpretation of G11 (blatant advertising, in this case, a self-promoting vanity bio). The closest the article comes to a statement of notability is the line, "So far gman hasn’t been on the grand stages of rock, but it is a mark he is moving to." Maybe once he moves to those grand stages, an article will be justified. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (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.