Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxton Brothers


 * 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. --Core desat 08:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Paxton Brothers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I nominated this article at WP:PROD about a month ago because the group isn't notable, the article is unsourced except for the group's website, and the main editor of the article has a clear conflict of interest with the subject. The main editor, one of the Paxtons, removed the prod notice. Before I prodded it, I did a big rewrite and copyedit, removed the 'living legend' and other peacock terms, and the personal information about their other businesses.

However, while the page now looks kind of nice, I still don't think the group is notable. The article is still unsourced, and it seems like its aim is to show how many notable artists with whom they had any association, however brief, and that doesn't make a music act notable if none of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC are met. A note on the talk page states that the group was active before the Internet so sources may be scarce, but that's no obstacle for other articles on musicians of that era and earlier. I've waited more than a month for the article to be sourced, and I think that's long enough. - Krakatoa Katie  07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. - Krakatoa  Katie  07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (see below) Keep. Meets notability criteria three (from the article) and one (from the external links) of WP:MUSIC. It is unsourced and there may be a conflict of interest, but that is no reason to delete it out of hand. If no-one steps forward to source it by the end of this month, I will myself. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The third notability criteria is a record certified gold or higher in any country. One of the external links (artistdirect.com) is a word-for-word copy of one of the earlier versions of this article. Discogs.com is a "community-driven site" and the Paxton Brothers content was submitted by 'paxtonbro'. Perhaps you're thinking of something else, because I've looked up and down WP:MUSIC and can't find any standard met by this article. Believe me, I'd love to be proven incorrect, but I don't think I am. - Krakatoa  Katie  20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Not three, four: a nationwide tour. Anyhow, after looking through google and the external links, I'm starting to agree. There's just not enough to justify an article, and the contributions made here seem more like a vanity page than anything else. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Keep (as you see fit) - KrakatoaKatie & Thesocialistesq – Thank you for your valuable comments and for taking the time to assess whether the Paxton Brothers Wikipedia entry is notable or not. The only reason for submitting the article at all is that there has been a recent interest in our music, which sometimes happens in the music business. Sincerely, it is not an attempt at either self promotion or putting up a vanity page. It is simply an attempt to clearly present what transpired some 30 years ago in an authoritative source. I was previously unfamiliar with the proper format for submitting such a Wiki article and apologize for some of the submission errors I have made. Katie, I thought it was the proper procedure to remove your Prod from the front page, while leaving your comments in the discussion section. Sorry for the mistake. Also, the peacock term, “living american legend” is how Ramblin’ Jack Elliot is often referred to within the music business and among his peers. I’m not really sure why, but imagine it has to do with his association with Woody Guthrie. In terms of the conflict of interest, I can understand your concern, but surely you must realize that many articles about professional entertainers are submitted by their PR firms in order to present the artist in the most accurate and professional manner. Personally, I do not see a COI in them doing so, but rather a benefit to Wikipedian readers. For example, Rock Scully, the long time manager of the Grateful Dead is recognized as a significant figure in the music industry. The person who wrote his Wiki article however, (probably a Grateful Dead fan) is completely unaware of his actual significance and has submitted a very poorly written and inaccurate POV bio about him. IMHO, it would have been better for Mr. Scully's publisher to have submitted the article. I have made no attempt to conceal my identity. In reading through the Paxton Brothers website, it is hoped that you will recognize that no attempt has been made to present our career as anything more than what it was. There is no commercial aspect to the site other than a merchandise link for children and the music downloads are offered for free. We were contracted with a major distribution label, had top-level management, performed on national tours with a-list acts, and were fortunate in our association with some of the eras most respected musicians. In spite of our relatively brief career, many of these professionals have felt it was significant enough to include us on their individual websites. It was my understanding that by submitting a stub (as an article in progress) …  that writers, critics, and others familiar with our career would have an opportunity to expand on it and provide references and sourcing. The question is whether the Paxton Brothers career is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia listing. You are professionals at determining such things and based on my understanding of the criteria, it is a judgment call. You both have extensive experience at making such judgments and therefore, I recognize your deleting or keeping the Paxton Brothers listing is a professional decision and not meant personally. So, do whatever you feel is appropriate. Best regards,  paxtonbro 10:20, 25 July 2007
 * Delete as non-notable; fails WP:MUSIC. Fairsing 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Standby for about 12 hours. I believe I have some printed references for this group in an old (70's era) compendium from Rolling Stone that I, uh, keep in the smallest room of the house.  - Richfife 02:25, 27 July 2007 (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.