Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Fox (Lion & Fox Recording Studios)


 * 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. Pretty clear consensus to delete, but I agree with Whpq that this might be a notable subject and am willing to userfy it. There is also the matter of the AfC article raised by Kelapstick. The AfC article is significantly better sourced but could get declined since the prior existence of an article in mainspace is reason for speedy decline at AfC. On the other hand, this article has no referencing at all so it would be better to delete this article and leave the matter for AfC to deal with.  Spinning Spark  16:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim Fox (Lion & Fox Recording Studios)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I cannot find any significant coverage, but a lot of the stuff I could find in reliable sources hints at notability and being very well regarded as a reggae recording engineer and producer. This article describes him as a top engineer; this article is in Spanish, but appears to describe him as important; this article has significant material about him but is primarily quoting SOJA about Fox's importance; this article in Spanish I think is similar in the band stating Fox's importance based on machine translation; also mentioned in this Billboard article.  I understand that almost none of this qualifies as significant coverage, but given the article was only created yesterday, and cursory search indicates notability, it would be best to keep the article and tag it for referencing and improvement.  You can count this as an ignore all rules weak keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Borderline WP:CSD. See also: Jim Fox (producer), Lionfox, Lion & Fox Studios. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with you, it should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment there is an article at AfC on the same subject, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Fox, should that have an impact on the closing admin's decision. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentI hope I'm allowed to post here. I don't really understand the reasoning for not keeping this article.  It is a well-sourced article about a record producer is responsible for hundreds of albums, many Grammy-nominated.  It is not promotion at all.  Everything is fact-based.  His discography alone should be considered as a primary source and reason for keeping the article.  The Black Uhuru Brutal Dub album, which he co-produced and mixed (the most crucial element of a dub album) actually won the Grammy but was rescinded because the Academy did not have a category for dub, which is all instrumental, experimental, with no vocal.  I hope you reconsider. Can you give guidance on what needs changing?  That is not a problem for me.--User:midnightraverblog  —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentAs for the PROMOTION thing. I am NOT Jim Fox.  This is text I wrote for a blog post that Fox submitted for approval here.  It is MY original work.  I am however submitting it for re-consideration.--User:midnightraverblog  —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. First off, midnightraverblog, you're certainly allowed to post here - but other editors do take into account your position as the original editor of the article. So, that's a thing. To your other comment.... So you wrote this up, and then it was submitted by Mr. Fox himself? The history says that you were the one who actually posted it at this article title. Or did Fox submit it at AFC? Either way, I think there are two questions - is Mr. Fox notable enough under our policies to justify an article? And, if so, is this that article? The answers show us the difference between not ever having an article and just not having one yet. I'm inclined to think that Fox is notable, but that this article is heavy in promotional text and very light in reliable sourcing. That might be a case to Userfy rather than to delete. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION; article's subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Recently-created, totally-unsourced BLP should have been prodded.  Mini  apolis  15:06, 26 May 2013 (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.