Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Fairway


 * 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 Merge to The Foundations There is not a strong case to delete this article anywhere in this conversation. There is however, a very valid argument being made to merge it. Some participants here seem to misunderstand that nothing is lost in a merge, the content is still available and a redirect will point anyone searching Mr. Fairway's name straight to the content they are looking for. The article as it stands now says nothing about Ron Fairway that is not directly about his connection to The Foundations, and there is no evidence of independent notability. The relevant guideline here is WP:BAND. Although not a member of the band himself, Mr. Fairway's notability is based solely on his relationship with this group, and no evidence of any public recognition for anything else has been presented. The content can still grow and be nurtured in "the wiki way" regardless of where it is located. If at some point evidence of independent notability not related to his association with The Foundations is presented, it can just as easily be spun back off into it's own article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ron Fairway

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable per WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; online references cited only make passing mention of subject in as part of articles on The Foundations, so content has been merged to that article. Prod contested by article's creator. MuffledThud (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find any coverage of this man or the law suit which followed which is unusual. Seems to utterly fail WP:N. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To WP:N. Panyd, if the article is referenced from MM magazine then that its good enough for me. I can do some research myself to confirm this. The article creator's an established and proven user ho references from both online and book and magazine references. That's good enough for me. If it's in book and magazine form then no problems here. (Mr Real Natural (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep I've had a good long enough look at the article in question and I'm satisfied that the article is notable.(Mr Real Natural (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete The article is not developed enough. As it is written, it belongs on the page with the rest of the band. USchick (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP Ron Fairway is indeed notable as the man who discovered the hit making interracial group The Foundations, was their manager, and ended up sueing them for wrongful dismissal. (George-Archer (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC))


 * NOTE The person who nominated this article for deletion had gone off like a bull at a gate. He / she first of all came across with a strange tactic of suggesting or using a connection to a supposed edit war that took place with The Foundations article. This was ponted out to (talk) that there was no connection with the Ron Fairway and Foundations article and the supposed edit war that took place there. And edit war is a wrongful term to use anyway. What took place was a person using the name of the Foundations for his bogus band and continually vandalising the Foundations Wikipedia page when he couldn't get his own way at using Wikipedia to promote his website. Myself and half a dozen other members had been continually correcting and tidying up the article. I find it very strange and surprising that MuffledThud would even attempt to bring this into the matter.
 * Another thing MuffledThud did was attempt to use the POV angle to get this deleted as well. There was no POV on my part. He / she went off like a bull at a gate again slapping on a tag, and by saying that it was POV without even bothering to check the references that have been there on the page as per


 * Now this particular reference has been on the Foundations article page for well over a year without challenge. It's good enough for other Wiki users / contributors as well. It's been good enough for me as I have referred to it right in front of my own eyes. It's in my posession. The others have been from the magazine pages which I have personally sighted. Other references are online. (George-Archer (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Reply There seems to be a misunderstanding here: both the earlier prod and this AFD are on the grounds of notability, not POV, as explained in the summary above. I merged the article to one paragraph of The Foundations in this edit, since Fairway is only notable for his brief role in their career. This article should be redirected there, after which the references can be improved and any remaining POV issues addressed there. Fairway is obviously worth mentioning in that article, but is clearly not notable enough for a separate article. Can we please address the question of notability for this discussion? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2010(UTC)
 * Reply The misunderstanding was you going off and charging in headfirst. Throwing around the POV claim without checking to see what the article was about as per the reference said and bringing in the "edit war that was not" as backup is irresponsible. Now the reference to Ron Fairway discovering the Foundations can be found here. This is the website of the original founding member of The Foundations. His name is Alan Warner. He has stated this and that is a good enough reference. Fairway's association with the Foundations is prominent as the * person who discovered them, * as manager, * being dismissed and * taking legal action against them. References to these can be found in Melody Maker magazine, Roger Dopson's notes, Alan Warner's website .... etc .... etc (George-Archer (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Reply But since this deletion discussion is about notability, can we please stick to discussing notability? How is Fairway notable enough for his own article, since his only claim to fame is his brief role in the career of The Foundations? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge anything salvageable and redirect to The Foundations. His only claims to notability are in reference to that group; he's a footnote in their career. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article for now, if it is true that Rod Fairway discovered the Foundations then he is the discoverer of a million selling group. I've seen the actual references to him being manager of the group for a good part of a year so I suppose that should be sufficient. Interesting to learn that he actually sued the group for being sacked. Was it misconduct ? BTW - the article seems to have enough weight to stand on it's own. IMO it's notable enough. (Sharkey45 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep' - Yes I agree with the above member. Fairway is clearly notable for his managerial association with the foundation and as a discoverer of this group. Being the guy that took legal action against them also is worth note. (Marinesuper (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - But how is this notable enough for a separate article to The Foundations, seeing as it adds nothing to what's there now?  By merging the whole of Ron Fairway to that article, only a few sentences have been added to the paragraph on their early years. MuffledThud (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To MuffledThud, I believe we should keep the article because Ron Fairway is notable as the former manager and the man who discovered them and being cast out as their manager and as the man who ended up taking the legal action. But that's not all. In case you've forgotten what Wikipedia is all about and the meaning of the word Wiki. It's a Hawaiian word. With Wikipedia, articles grow and evolve. Besides IMO notability already being established, I can see the potential for further growwth and evolution of this article. As it is now, It has taken on it's own unique form.I've watched the minor changes taking place over the last couple of days and I can see where it can lead. Snuffing an article out in it's growth stage makes no sense. Even if the article grows no more than it has now, I believe that it's present state warrants being separate. I do believe as I suggested before that there is growth potential in this article. Many of our best articles in Wikipedia are ones that have survived the challenges. So that's my 2 bob worth. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Reply But that doesn't answer the question: what has Fairway done, apart from briefly been the manager of The Foundations? The normal growth process for an article is to develop a section until it's too big to include all the detail anymore, at which point it's appropriate to spin it off separately. There seems to be no such justification here. MuffledThud (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To MuffledThud, I can see justification here to keep the article. Notability is now without question. I can see here that Fairway has at least 4 major points that tie him to The Foundations. I don't know how long Fairway was actually mkanager. Looking at the article here and some look on the net it would have to be over 6 months to 9. Seeing where and when the debut single Baby, Now That I've Found You charted and reading that he was sacked near after gives an indication of at least 6, possiblt 10 months. After being sacked from the Foundations managment, he took legal action. That is something else too. I see no reason to delete or merge. I see more points here and there to keep the article. Now in response to the beginning (your question), well if you're curiouis to find out what else Fairway has done then you had better keep watch on the article and see what else develops. Delete it and you'll never know. But besides all of that. I still maintain that the articles notability status has been established and it should stay. (Marinesuper (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Reply notability in conjunction with The Foundations is without question, yes. Notability for anything else, which would justify a separate article, is definitely not. Is it really impossible for anyone to mention here in the AFD discussion what he's notable for, apart from his brief spell as manager of a band?  Did he manage any other bands?  Anything? Anyone? Bueller? MuffledThud (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP, This seems notable enough. As someone who has been credited with the discovery of famous group amd has other connections to them is not notable then I don't know what is. I agree with the points mentioned to keep the article. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)) — Milestokilo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Milestokilo, can you please expand: how does the subject meet notability according to WP:BIO? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that all the current content of Ron Fairway is now merged to the first paragraph of The Foundations. MuffledThud (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply, Incorrect actually. And ...... Not all content belongs there. This is also a separate article in the developmental stage. Further info will not be placed / merged into Foundations article. You've attempted to pull out all the stops to have your own way. Right from the beginning with your feeble attempt to try and tar this article with some errorneous somewhat misleading suggestion of an "edit war" when there was nothing of the sort with the Foundations article. Then you come across with POV when you didn't even bother to check the references that have been there unchallenged on the Foundations article for well over a year to two years. You've charged in like a rocket and it has been for no point at all except for your own measure. This article is in the developmental stage and evolving. Certain aspects and content will crowd the Foundations article at the beginning of career and belong here rather than there. Interesting that you've waited until now to try this merge attempt. What was it the other day ? You placed the  tag all over the article when you never did the same for some of the very same Roger Dopson links that appeared on The Foundations article. What next ? And I know that you were checking back and forth between the two articles, because if you weren't then you wouldn't have tried the merge caper ..... *Sigh*


 * Reply I'm applying the same notability criteria to this article as is used to speedy-delete thousands of articles about corporate CEOs, where notability is erroneously claimed by association with notable companies, and where the subjects are only mentioned briefly in cited sources. I don't believe accusations of bad faith over this are helpful, using wording like "caper", "misleading", "feeble attempt", etc., even implying that I must have some sort of WP:Conflict of interest over this in the article's talk page. I'm asking you once again, please provide evidence of notability per WP:BIO etc. that justifies splitting this off to a separate article. Nowhere is his notability asserted for anything other than his brief career with the band, all of which is now contained neatly in a single paragraph of The Foundations.  If you'd like more time to develop the article, I'd be happy to copy it to a subpage of your user page, or move it to the Article Incubator, where it can be more fully developed.  As it stands, the article fails all agreed WP guidelines on notability. Please advise how you'd like to proceed.  Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply I see that you're still continuing with your attempt to cover up your "bull headed" charge. You've made the error with the incorrect POV and "edit war" angles that were strange to see here to say the least. You should deal with your mistake like a mature adult. (George-Archer (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Reply Please refrain from disparaging remarks: let's please work out the notability issue here, rather than turn it into a slanging match. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply, I'm not making disparaging remarks as you say or maysee, I'm just calling it how I see it. If I walk under a waterfall then that means that I have walked under a waterfall and not a water sprinkler. There is a a difference and I hope you'll get it. To the article , well Fairway's notability has been established as the discoverer of Foundations. There are other notable points with him and them and no doubt the article will grow. If you want to be the elimnator then perhaps Wiki isn't the joint for you. (George-Archer (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Merge to The Foundations, not independently notable. Also under Bejnar (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Hello Bjnar and this here is why. I believe we should keep the article because Ron Fairway is notable as the former manager and the man who discovered them and being cast out as their manager and as the man who ended up taking the legal action. But that's not all. In case you've forgotten what Wikipedia is all about and the meaning of the word Wiki. It's a Hawaiian word. With Wikipedia, articles grow and evolve. Besides IMO notability already being established, I can see the potential for further growwth and evolution of this article. As it is now, It has taken on it's own unique form.I've watched the minor changes taking place over the last couple of days and I can see where it can lead. Snuffing an article out in it's growth stage makes no sense. Even if the article grows no more than it has now, I believe that it's present state warrants being separate. I do believe as I suggested before that there is growth potential in this article. Many of our best articles in Wikipedia are ones that have survived the challenges. So that's my 2 bob worth. I know that I'm repeating myself here but I think that this is my 3 bob worth now. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Reply I've indented your comment, to make it clear to reviewing admins that this is a repeat of the reply to me above. Nobody is suggesting "snuffing an article out" here.  My original edit to the article and first post to the talk page was a suggestion to merge on grounds of notability.  No information will be lost by a merge, and if any future contributions indicate that Fairway is notable for anything other than his brief association with The Foundations, then it can be split back out again in seconds.  In fact, if there were anything indicating notability per WP:BIO for anything else he's done (or doing), I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination now.  But every time I've asked for this, the answer has consistently been "let's see what develops", "no doubt the article will grow", etc.  What would your objections be to a merge? MuffledThud (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

References:


 * 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.