Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael G. Fisher


 * 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. Article is found to not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Michael G. Fisher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a successful working musician, but not to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Atleast 7 WP:SPAs have made a significant contribution to this page and no regular editors - v. likely this is promotional. Has been tagged for notability for six and a half years; time for a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per insufficient coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 10:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 01:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article's listed sources are unreliable and do not prove the subject's notability. BenLinus  1214 talk 03:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – A rather weak keep, because coverage is pretty thin (studio musician). But he may meet #C7 and #C10 of WP:MUSICBIO. There is one very good source, the long quote. There was a better source for playing on the Emmy award winning score [LA Times], when he sold his home. His credits (1978 to 2014) are listed at discogs, which is a crowd-sourced site and not exactly an RS. But these lists are usually pretty reliable as they are nothing more than transcriptions of credits and liner notes, and the contributors are pretty conscientious about it.  For all its limitations, discogs is the best source I know of for this kind of information. And I'm not bothered so much by the fact that the  contributors are SPAs. From the comments on the talk page, they seem to be people from the music industry in LA who know his work and think he should have an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Discogs is not reliable per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, know about the rule that user-generated content is never reliable. That's why it was a weak keep. We're all making rather weak arguments here. The nom objects to the article's creators, even though in theory articles "are not judged based on who created them, how active that creator is or was on Wikipedia" (WP:INVOLVE). We have an objection that the listed sources are weak, even though in theory !voters at AfD are supposed to search for additional sources (WP:BEFORE). Or maybe that applies only to the nom. I don't know. Every article that arrives at AfD has problems. It's easy to apply blanket rule or look only at the problems. If you look at the thousands of transclusions for Discogs artist, it's also clear that our authors want readers to know about it. There would be an uproar if we tried to delete that, even if it's only used in External links. I'm offering it here only as evidence that if Discogs says he has close to 300 credits, then it's very likely that we would find those credits if we actually went out and looked. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2015 (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.