Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Hanhart


 * 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. No prejudice against early recreation if sources are found. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Simon Hanhart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minimally sourced article about a recording engineer which contains little to no substantive information. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. His major claim to fame is a producing credit on a charity single; even if verifiable (not verifiable online, but a copy of the book may be useful), this single claim is not sufficient to merit inclusion. Regardless, does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG standards. As ever, a music industry professional is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they can be nominally verified as having existed; they must garner reliable source coverage by which their passage of an WP:NMUSIC criterion can be confirmed. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – Source searches are providing no significant coverage; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America1000 00:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The above searches find quite a few mentions in reliable sources, particularly books, but no significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am confused. He is the producer of Perfect Day which reached the UK #1 position and is the fourth million seller of the year 1997. Why would this not be viable under CREATIVE or WP:NMUSICIAN, given the number of books covering this achievement? Lourdes  04:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment., if you can find additional sources, I'd go with your argument. Generally, producers are so common as to be run of the mill, but this might be an exception. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the sources I've been able to find only have his mentions and document his song becoming #1, but nothing in-depth. For example, . I don't know what to make of it actually. Lourdes  06:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting editors to give a quick look to the sources I've put and comment on whether this qualifies the subject under CREATIVE or WP:NMUSICIAN, given a song he produced reached the #1 position on UK charts (see discussion above). Lourdes  05:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * DELETE Close call, but delete.  The sources are just mere mrntions.  Additionally, there are numerous producers of #1 singles without a Wikipedia page.  The feat itself probably doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN.  Finally, most of his credits appear to be for engineering work, rather than production, which is even more run of the mill.  2600:1:F10E:944A:48B5:AB0E:F528:5D02 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks Just two issues with your comment. CREATIVE or NMUSICIAN does not require significant mentions in sources; just confirmation about the achievement provides the probability that significant sources may be available. Secondly, it doesn't matter if there are numerous producers of #1 singles without a Wikipedia page. It's a big world anyway and other stuff can exist. What would your views be on these points of mine? Thanks. Lourdes  03:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, requesting editors to give a quick look to the sources I've put and comment on whether this qualifies the subject under CREATIVE or WP:NMUSICIAN, given a song he produced reached the #1 position on UK charts (see discussion above). Lourdes  03:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP The article is really just a stub and not well written either. It needs major work. Apart from the mentioned #1 song though, I think his main contribution is as producer/engineer for the first 5 Marillion albums (many of whose songs charted back in the '80s), Tin Machine (David Bowie), Asia, etc. That to me is much more notable work than a single song. 87.13.127.6 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE WP:NMUSIC shouldn't apply here. The book sources are just going to lead to mere mentions, not anything substantive.  Additionally, it appears that the majority of his work is simply as mixer/engineer, which is far less notable than a producer.  The editor above is correct re: Marillion, but any sources relating to this are just mere mentions, and not enough to rise to the level of notability.  100.11.26.241 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks. Just two issues with your comment. Please consider CREATIVE or NMUSICIAN (and not the overall NMUSIC); and NMUSICIAN does not require significant mentions in sources; just confirmation about the achievement provides the probability that significant sources may be available. Secondly, it doesn't matter if he has done other work aa mixer/engineer. What matters is whether the sources confirm the requirements of NMUSICIAN, which in my opinion it does. What would your views be on these points of mine? Thanks. Lourdes  02:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * COMMENT --- @Lourdes, relative to what was said by a couple of people above --- it seems unlikely to me that "the achievement provides the probability that significant sources may be available."  It is, IMO, highly unlikely that those sources exist.  My guess is that every single source would amount to a simple notation that he was the producer on a successful single.  Quite frankly, if Hanhart possesses the notability suitable for a WP article, it is likely via his work with Marillion, and not the Perfect Day single.  That said, in searching for anything substantive related to that, I come up empty.  It's also all just notations that he worked with them, as opposed to anything substantive.  I lean delete here, but I can see reasons for keeping as well.  Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead and I comment since we're close to a closing, and I'll note although the last sentence is the best of significance here, it's not quite enough to suggest his own convincing article hence delete. SwisterTwister   talk  02:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Ok. I tried at least :) I understand the views given above. I'll suggest to the closing admin to delete with a comment of no prejudice against early recreation if sources are found. Thanks. Lourdes  03:25, 20 November 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.