Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Lane


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Randy Lane

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an autobiography, which has had over an year to fix its source problems. I believe it was nominated for CSD before. Fails WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Notability  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'll attempt to remove all of the spam links, sponsorship stuff, and misc unencyclopedic information. It may come down to seeing whether the remaining information can even survive as a stub.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  05:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The only notability asserted on this article are the three band associated with Randy Lane: No Address, Carolina Liar, and Pat Travers. No Address and Carolina Liar are both bands which the only true notability lies with the existence of the Randy Lane article, and Pat Travers lineup includes Randy Lane, hardly a real assertion of importance.  Noting the circular notability runaround, this drummer's article is not notable, and I plan on AfDing the two articles once this article is deleted.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  06:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Fails all of criteria. It also looks like the other related band articles are similar in failing the notability guidelines. ThePointblank (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per guideline #2 of WP:MUSIC. Belonged to/associated with a few bands/artists that charted, despite slight lack of notability. Strongly recommend Randy stops editing his own article if this is to be kept. Master&amp;Expert  ( Talk ) 06:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete per ThePointblank's comment below. Borderline notability + desire for article deletion = delete in respect for WP:BLP (or so I believe that's how it goes...). Master&amp;Expert  ( Talk ) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the essay WP:GARAGEBAND is a essential read. Tyler Stewart is notable because he's part of a band that has major recognition, and has received notable awards (such as a number of Juno's and Grammy's). Randy Lane appears to be not as notable, the only notable band he has been with is Pat Travers, but one thing to note is that relationships do not confer notability. Furthermore, looking at the talk page, it appears that the article's creator actually wants the article to BE deleted as well. ThePointblank (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC states that a band can be notable if it has one or more notable members. Conversely, wouldn't that make the member of a notable band notable by the same reasoning? At the very least he could be redirected instead of deleted.- Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It's not the same reasoning.  Is the 7th chari violin in the Los Angeles Philharmonic notable?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I know we're not supposed to use the term 'vanity' here, but I can't help it. The edit history clearly shows this is a vanity piece. At first I thought it was OK, because the bands he's in also have their own articles (suggesting some notability) but those other articles should probably be proposed for deletion too. =Axlq 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, or possibly redirect to Pat Travers Band, if such an article existed. A merge into Pat Travers would not be appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Members of two seperate notable bands are usually kept (Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article) as a redirect to one or the other cannot be done. --neon white talk 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Only Pat Travers is notable, as has been reported above.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This afd has nothing to Pat Travers, it's to determine whether Randy Lane is notable and being a member of two notable groups, No Address and Carolina Liar, makes him notable under current guidelines. --neon white talk 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you take a closer look at the two bands you've mentioned, the only reason why the band articles are there are because of Randy Lane's article's existence. Without Randy Lane, who is up for deletion right now, these band articles will be subsequently be non-notable and will be AfDed in due time.  Therefore, applying circular logic in saying that a band member is notable because of the two otherwise non-notable bands without Randy Lane is... well... I won't finish that sentence...  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a pretty unfounded presumption, they exist because someone created them, both article demonstrate notablity as they have released multiple albums, have had hits and have coverage by sources. Please do not presume to know the outcome of deletion reviews before they have been nominated until then we should assume they are notable and therefore Randy Lane is notable for being part of both. --neon white talk 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that none of that is sourced ("released multiple albums", "have had hits"), we can argue that the bands are not notable here, without bringing it up in a specific AfD on those articles. Otherwise, we'd have to nominate all the (sometimes hundreds) of articles in a walled garden at the same time.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I have actually brought this exact issue up in the past on how to determine notability when someone is not a member of a "band" and have been told by admins that the same core guideline applies for all articles - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article (WP:GNG). This makes sense and also follows the concept that "notability is not inherited". The one exception, in regards to music, is found at Criteria for musicians and ensembles, number 6, which states Contains at least one notable musician; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. In this case common sense would tell us that, on the Pat Travers article, it might be fine to include a list of musicians he has worked with, however not each musician should have their own article unless that musician has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. By all accounts, in this case, the subject of this article has not received "Significant coverage" (means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive - WP:SNG. An in depth article in Modern Drummer would qualify as "Significant coverage", a one line press release that says "Randy Lane has been touring with Pat Travers and will soon be recording a new disc with the guitarist" would not. Likewise, again based on the exact same criteria, being a member of a "notable" band does not allow every person to automatically receive their own article. The Additional criteria that can be used for all biographies are either The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Currently there are not enough sources to show that the subject of this article meets either of these criteria. I would support a redirect to the band he was a member of for five years, No Address. A redirect to either Pat Travers or Carolina Liar would not make sense as Randy was not a member of either band, he was hired (or a "non-member member" if you will) and worked with Pat Travers during 2007 and was hired as the fill in drummer for Carolina Liar for a few months in 2008. As of October 28 Randy is not playing with them anymore as Max Grahn, Carolina Liars' drummer, is back. (From the bands tour blog - Max is Back!!! Randy Lane has been a huge help to us while Max was back in Sweden so we wanted to say thank you again for all of his help and wisdom! Max joined up with us yesterday in Denver and tonight at Sokol is his first show back. Nothing to crazy has happened with us in the last few days but I should review the tapes to see if some how I've forgotten something. I hope to see you guys tonight !! - Tuesday, October 28, 2008 [NOTE: I tired to provide the direct link but the Wikipedia SPAM filter seems ot have blacklisted myspace blogs)]) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between a 'member' of a band and someone who plays with a band is negligible, neither concept is defined anywhere and it really has little affect on notability, as neither can inherit the notability of the band, most band members are considered non-notable and are redirected, however in the case of a subject that has been a member of or played with notable bands, there is no obvious redirect so in general the articles are kept, it's not ideal but it's the current consensus as is demonstrated in the guidelines. --neon white talk 16:38, 4 November 2008 (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.