Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny Gault


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn per addition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lenny Gault

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Best charting single got to #78 on the singles charts. Granted, there won't be many online references to him, but I'm curious as to where we draw the line. WP:BAND says that an act may be notable if they've charted a single. However, the Joel Whitburn books are chock full of artists who only charted once in the lower 1/4 of the chart, never charted again and faded into the past. And about 99% of these artists who never made it past the #75 range are completely unheard of in the Googleverse. I would add in this case that he recorded for a very small indie label.

I can't find any BLP info besides a date of birth in the Whitburn country singles book, so I would think that if there's almost nothing besides Whitburn to verify that he even exists, then a #78 single over 30 years ago (on a chart that currently stops at #60, for the record) probably doesn't cut it since we know nothing else about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Charted is charted. Once notable, always notable. And it is likely that more biographical information can be found on sources dated around the time the song charted that have not been digitized. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you'd argue to keep an article on the band Shurfire, who despite having a #47 hit are so obscure that Joel Whitburn can't even confirm any of the band members' names?! Get real. Did you ignore the "MAY" in the sentence I highlighted? Nowhere does it say that charted single = GUARANTEED notability, it only means "may" be notable. Not "will", "May". I just love how you think that policy's ironclad and guaranteed to make an article stay even if it's someone whose only hit got to #100. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. 3 charted singles and some verifiable (albeit minimal) biographical info - what exactly is the problem here? Should we purge Wikipedia of all musicians who were slightly famous for a period of time which happens to predate the age of the internet? I think not. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources. Do you have any? Because I found only ONE, and it's trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The only claim to notability here it seems is that he had the 78th most-played country song in a week once. If he'd had the 78th best-selling single (all genres) in a week (i.e. bordering on a genuine hit record) then that might be enough to say that he's notable but such a low placing on a specialist chart based on airplay is not enough on its own. There is apparently no significant coverage of Lenny Gault, with the sources available giving him the briefest of mentions. So by our notability guidelines he isn't notable. I'm in two minds though - he fails established notability criteria but is deleting this necessarily going to benefit the encyclopedia?--Michig (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Waffle much? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On occasions.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I see no problem with a user fairly weighing the evidence in favor of and against deletion during an AfD discussion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added. I'm waiting for Endalecomplex to change their vote so I can withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. Per nom's above comment (thanks, again, for taking a second look during an AfD at your own nonmination), and refs (that are now reflected in the article; though their existence, whether or not reflected in the article, would have been sufficient).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per additional references. Sorry TPH, I didn't realize you were waiting for me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:47, 18 July 2011 (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.