Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wilbur


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Josh Wilbur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per this discussion, this appears to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E. While this guy may someday pass WP:GNG, being only an engineer on one album that won a Grammy not for engineering says WP:NotJustYet. Toddst1 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a severe misinterpretation of BIO1E. Plenty of people are notable for doing just one thing, if that thing is noteworthy enough to meet any of the specific notability guides. Wilbur, in this case, has done so - he has won a Grammy award for mastering engineering (and is credited with the win by the Grammy foundation, not just been an engineer on an album that won an award for other reasons), which means he meets WP:MUSIC. He does not need to win two Grammys. Also, I encourage editors to view the page history - it was once not nearly so stubby, and has been stripped of a lot of information that is probably verifiable. Chubbles (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not according to consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music). Toddst1 (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't weigh in there because I was on vacation, but the reasoning employed there does not check out. Winning a Grammy is nowhere near the kind of "one event" that 1E covers; I encourage editors there and here to revisit the guideline. Chubbles (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He didn't win a Grammy. A record that he worked on as a recording engineer won a Grammy. If there was a Grammy for "Best Recording Engineering" and that record won that, I might be persuaded that Josh Wilbur won a Grammy himself. Saying he's reached notability requirements for his list of credits is like saying a waiter should have an article because he's worked at 30 different restaurants and one of them won Restaurant of the Year. Sorry. Amsgearing (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should take the Grammy Foundation's word as to what they meant to honor with the awards they bestow, and Wilbur is credited with a win alongside Earle. Not sure what the apology is in reference to. Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is too poor. Despite two years and a hundred edits, the article hasn't grown beyond three sentences. There doesn't seem to be anything more to say about this guy.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article had a credit list of dozens of albums, which was removed because an editor found that Wilbur was not credited in the liner notes of one of the albums on which he was credited by the cited source (Allmusic); that editor removed the entire list of credits and engaged in an edit war to keep the material from being restored. There is a lot of spurious reasoning and WP:AADD going on here... Chubbles (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at WP:AADD, and I find only one argument here that meets a description in that essay: "Plenty of people are notable for doing just one thing" is the same argument as the third example in WP:OTHERSTUFF, so maybe you should reconsider your keep vote. Amsgearing (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My allusion was too opaque, so let me be crystal clear. It is an argument to avoid to claim, as the first statement in this subthread does, that there is nothing more to say about the article subject when the article has almost no content after X years. First, the poor current status of an article is not (ever) an indicator of lack of notability, and second, the article grew well beyond three sentences, but much of that content is now hidden; there is more to say, but we have not yet figured out how to say it well. I'm not really interested in boring other readers here by responding to the pot/kettle allegation you make, so if you want to continue a discussion about that, please do so at my talk page. Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Even beyond BIO1E, I'd argue he's not even notable for the one event, as the record won a Grammy, not the actual recording engineer. Yes, besides the artist, they give a trophy to the producer, the mixer, the recording engineer, and for all we know, the guy who cleans up the studio after the artists leave for the day. So what? As for the credit list of "dozens of albums", besides being unreliable to begin with, he was the mixer or recording engineer on most of those; even if the list was accurate, it wasn't nearly enough to meet WP:GNG, and merely functioned as padding to make the article look more impressive by sheer length. Amsgearing (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He won a Grammy, that makes him notable in the field of music, there is even a news article cited that states that he won the Grammy. Anyone who wins a Grammy is notable, period. I agree with Chubbles's line of reasoning here. If he were just the recording engineer on a hit album that DIDN'T win a Grammy I would not call him notable, no matter how many people bought the album, but this is the top award in music we are talking about here. Getting that award means something, it means notability among other things. Yetisyny (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't win a Grammy, the album did: and the news article you touted is from his small hometown newspaper, hardly a quality source for a claim that big. --Calton | Talk 03:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I understand where the people who want this page deleted may be coming from, about him only being recognized for the one Grammy. But the fact of the matter is Josh has worked on many other projects and has been credit in each one of them whether as a producer, engineer, or mixer. I saw in past history, from Josh Wilbur's Wikipedia page, he had more than the three sentences you saw before. So I do not agree that the WP:NotJustYet should be recognized because the information of his past works has either not been put in or someone deleted it from his page. Meaning we should give it time so users can input the information. Jhernandez43! (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Jhernandez43! (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This editor began editing today; the editor's only edits are to Wilbur's page. Chubbles (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment there's been A LOT of edit-warring about the content of this page, including some contributions WP:REVDEL-ed as obvious copyright violations. Does being a person with a named technical credit on a Grammy automatically meet notability guidelines?  No.  Is it likely to do so?  Yes.  How do we tell the difference?  What other coverage is there.  Links (please no more than 2-3 per person) would be the easiest way to tell; I assume all coverage is online (or in newspapers which can be accessed online).  If  is the best/only coverage, he probably is not notable.  No redirect is possible here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO because he won a Grammy award for mastering engineering (and is credited with the win by the Grammy foundation). By long standing consensus, articles which satisfy that criteria are never deleted for lack of notability. James500 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarification. He did not win "for mastering engineering" or any kind of engineering category. There was no recognition or consensus from grammy voters base on his engineering work. Quite simply, the album for which he served as one of three engineers won best Contemporary Folk/Americana. Voters most judged it for many criteria, principally performance, quality of songs, etc. Yes, engineering is included in this--and indeed his name appears on the award--but it's disingenuous to state that he was singularly recognized for his engineering work. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "By long standing consensus, articles which satisfy that criteria are never deleted for lack of notability." You just made that up out of thin air. Check this discussion. Consensus there is that engineering a recording that won a single award is NOT enough to render a subject notable. Walter Görlitz and Donald Albury make particularly cogent arguments there as to why this is the case; you should read those points. Amsgearing (talk)
 * I did not make it up, see WP:BIO, which makes it very clear that deletion is not an option. James500 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and there is no music bio to support the subject's claim to notability, but again, no sources recognize the subject and so we do not need to either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, and no, he didn't win a Grammy, an album he worked on did, so James500's Wikilawyering -- even if you accepted his claim about precedent -- is without foundation. --Calton | Talk 03:40, 8 September 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.