Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nic Hard


 * 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. Not taking into account the first, IP "keep" as making no understandable argument.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Nic Hard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe there is much information on this person, who may not be notable enough. RES2773 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable recording engineer. Half the references are--incredibly--reviews the subject has written about recording equipment! Highly suspect that the subject himself has authored this entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Moderately successful, but not encyclopedically notable.  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep information seems to have been updated since previous comments were left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.193.13 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)  — 104.162.193.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment While the article has been updated, there is no additional indication of the notability of this artist. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Note to 104.162.193.13. Since you left a message on my dashboard asking me to take a second look with the revised sources, here’s my response: First, I appreciate you asking for help to improve an article to avoid deletion. However, the new sources still come up short as far as conveying notability beyond the insular world of the technical end of the recording industry. These sources are trade publications and websites that would have no relevance to anyone outside the nuts and bolts of the industry. Within this world, even if Nic Hard were a “rock star”, it’s still a hard argument to consider him encyclopedia worthy. It’s a bit like, say, a successful realtor in Southern California having a wikipedia page on the strength of being a “name” among realtors and getting tons of press in multiple realtor trade publications. To keep the article there needs to be sources outside of trade news that convey notability. If they exist then they should be referenced. Resume style listings of credits, such as those on Discogs and AllMusic are also not enough by themselves. Second, as the likely author of the article your “keep” vote should be stricken since it is not an impartial opinion. And, here’s a question for you: are you Nic Hard (or his manager)? Considering the article sees fit to mention the subject's management, I suspect you may be, and therefore this article seems promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as still questionable and too soon for a solid article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - only a few mixers appear to be notable, yet we should have some precedent to start, as a test case or specimen type, pardon the analogies. That being said, I only see a single good source in the article. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I consider a precedent having been set by Geoff Emerick as the type of people in this profession who have achieved notability. Outside of working with similar legendary recording artists very few others merit wikipedia notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

*Keep - The importance of producers and mixers in the music business is akin to Directors and editors in film. There are many, many people in this field whose work defines a genre of music and shapes the music for a generation. As far as I can tell this person has been credited with developing a "sound" that is unique and well respected by Artists, Labels and other people in the industry. I think that people like this should be included in wikipedia. It is art, not data entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.193.13 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Removed, as only one !vote per person/IP address is allowed. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 10:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to admin The keep votes are from the same IP address that reveals a SPA editor who possibly has a role in the authorship of article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2016 (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.