Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker McGee


 * 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 no consensus. Votes and arguments roughly split. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 00:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Parker McGee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How does this entry fail WP:MUSBIO exactly? According to "Criteria for composers and lyricists", a composer may be notable if they have; "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." England Dan and John Ford Coley's "I'd Really Love To See You Tonight" charted in 1976 on Billboard's Year-End Hot 100 for that year, at the #21 position.


 * Your assertion that this composer's entry also fails WP:ANYBIO, seems to also be negated, based upon the above information. (This composer's work IS part of the enduring historical record of 1970's popular music.) As for the WP:BIO concern, this can easily be overcome through diligent research and editing by any interested contributor. Edit Centric  talk 00:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. It may be able to be fixed, but it's very poorly sourced and promotional. I could blank most of the article per WP:BLP.  I'm not saying the topic shouldn't have an article, but as it stands, it just doesn't cut it. Also see WP:TNT. -&copy;2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, but rewrite. Blatant copyright violations, with some of the article text copied straight from Billboard: "McGee's first break came in 1967, when a group he was playing in won a Mississippi Battle of the Bands competition." My 'keep' vote is because McGee had an in-depth write-up in Billboard, a biography on AllMusic, and he co-wrote a couple of major hit songs. He satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I had checked for this, but didn't find anything. That said, if it does contain extensive copyright violations, it should be speedily deleted under CSD G12. Even if it doesn't, it should probably be deleted anyway, just for the sake of starting over. It does, after all, contain copyvios and is promotional, so it would practically need to be entirely rewritten anyway. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The copyvio was blatant but not extensive. I don't think we need to explode the current article to rewrite it. If you see any more copyvio just rewrite those parts. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches found nothing better and the entire article is still questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. he is notable, as he wrote a song in the top 100 chart. This meets notability, just lots of issues. See WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:22, 1 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.