Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Fields (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 Redirect to Harry Chapin due to coverage in reliable sources insufficient to establish notability. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Howard Fields (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-independently-notable member of Harry Chapin's band. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:MUSICBIO.Guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO indicate that the appropriate action in this case is to redirect to the main band, Harry Chapin, which I have done in the past, (so has Doomsdayer520). However, both times the redirect was reverted by Citybuild122. The second time, additional sources were provided,, , , but they do not help demonstrate notability as none of them can be considered independent in-depth coverage in a reliable source. signed,Rosguill talk 22:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am wrong, and I won’t argue if I am, but I have been operating under the generalized notability guideline that if someone has been featured in an article they are considered notable. It seems to me like there are so many guidelines for notability on Wikipedia, that if you pass one of them then the article stays. Citybuild122 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The key word in the criteria, often overlooked, is may be notable. To be the subject of an article either may or may not be enough depending on multiple factors, pending these aDf discussions. At the very least, though, it helps build the case for keep...but it's not automatic. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Source quality is an important consideration. As WP:GNG states, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Of the three additional sources I linked to above, two and three are the personal websites of the Harry Chapin band and Howard Fields himself, which is pretty much the opposite of an independent source. Number one is in a small publication that doesn't have clear editorial policies, which makes it probably not reliable, but even more important is that it merely mentions Fields and quotes him on the topic of the band–this isn't in-depth coverage of Fields himself as a subject. The other two articles provided cited in the article are also published on the band's or Field's personal websites. signed,Rosguill talk 06:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel the fact that he was in Harry Chapin’s band makes him notable enough. He was involved in numerous high selling albums reaching in the millions. He has been mentioned in some way in multiple news articles. Citybuild122 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in looking at the policy at WP:MUSICBIO, which states members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. signed,Rosguill talk 17:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I don’t feel like I’ve really been given the chance (or anyone else for that matter) to improve the article before this deletion nomination.Citybuild122 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect - lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources about any career outside of playing for Chapin that would establish independent notability, -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Permanently Redirect to Harry Chapin - The article's creator and un-redirect-er, CityBuild122, has said several times here and in edit comments that Mr. Fields appeared in many articles that prove his notability. The next step is to actually deliver those articles if they exist. I can find no independent media sources that get beyond Mr. Fields's existence as a member of Harry Chapin's band, so in my view nothing can be said about the gentleman except that he was present during Chapin's career. That can be done at Chapin's article. I may change my vote if CityBuild122 can deliver something that surpasses the policy-based weaknesses described by Rosguill in this debate. Meanwhile, if the ultimate decision here is to redirect, steps should be taken to prohibit reversions of that move. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the notability guideline for people, multiple articles can be sourced to provide notability. Note that it never says anything about the person being the subject. The following news articles qualify: article 1 Article 2 If you require more, I will gladly give more. Those two alone show that multiple sources have coveted him and it passes the criteria. Also, he was in The Night That Made America Famous, a multi award nominated broadway play. That’s significant. Citybuild122 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Two news articles have been cited in the article in which they both mentioned Howard Fields and speak to him. In addition that, other articles have been cited. Here are the two articles:article 1 Article 2 According to WP:NBIO, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", he passes the criteria. Note, it never states that he has to be the subject of the article. Therefore, he passes the criteria and the page should be kept. Citybuild122 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I acknowledge that you found two news articles in which Mr. Fields is mentioned, but they are both about individual concerts in which Fields is merely quoted in a couple of sentences (Roxbury) or named just once as being present (Fort Myers). You have cited WP:NBIO, but this guideline says "...independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," with the key term being MAY. I must conclude that those two sources do not achieve much on Mr. Fields's behalf by being combined, and all other available sources appear to fan sites and promotional sites. My vote will remain as-is, based on the WP:EXIST standard, but again I have no objection to mentioning Mr Fields's fine work with Harry Chapin's music at Chapin's article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the basic criteria guideline doesn’t state that anyone here needs to interpret the guideline. It states that the independent sources may be combined to prove notability and a subject is presumed notable. There is no “May be notable”. Citybuild122 (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, but re-read WP:MUSICBIO. Under the heading about criteria, the very first line reads "may be notable." Establishing notability is not a mere exercise in the rote check off of a list of criteria. Hence these AfD discussions. That is exactly the reason the word "may" is specified through out wikipedia's various notability guidelines. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the guideline that I’m referring to is WP:NBIO. Not the one you referenced. In the one that I am talking about, he passes the guideline. The thing that I don’t understand is why this entry is still ongoing if I’ve cited a guideline in which he passes notability? Citybuild122 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have combined sources to build an argument, we have combined Wikipedia guidelines to build an argument. Now let the consensus process play out. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. I combined articles for a guideline, not an argument. You are all completely ignoring the guideline that I have cited. The article passes the guideline. You can’t combine guidelines to get something deleted just because you don’t want it on wikipedia. Citybuild122 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even when combined, those two sources do not demonstrate significant coverage of the subject: they barely mention Howard Fields, and are clearly promotional/routine coverage even in terms of their analysis of their primary subject. You're welcome to disagree with this evaluation, but claiming that NBIO allows you to combine any two articles to demonstrate notability without a defense of how their combined content is significant is a pretty weak argument (and arguably wikilawyering, which is frowned upon) signed,Rosguill talk 21:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Harry Chapin. WP:MUSICBIO is clear on this, musicians need to demonstrate individual notability outside of the band to warrant their own article. Even the sources linking to Steve Chapin Band is really about the music of Harry Chapin. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is false. While the Steve Chapin Band do perform some songs of harry, it has been clearly stated they play original music. Regardless, the Steve Chapin Band isn’t physically “the same as Harry Chapin”. They are an independent band that has been the subject of news articles.Citybuild122 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chapin’s article. Subject does not meet any independent notability guidelines. Trivial sources mentioned above may qualify as fact-checkers for referencing, not as meeting notability.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  02:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chapin's article, since his band does not have its own article. Simply does not meet WP:MUSICBIO.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:22, 31 October 2018 (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.