Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Stockwell


 * 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. the argument for keeping is that the case involving him might become notable. It isn't yet. And even if it does become notable, it will be the case, not him.  DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ted Stockwell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN individual known for a WP:1EVENT, a suit against Microsoft. The musical career does not seem to have the support need to provide notability. There is nothing in the Reuters articles that even implies, "The Microsoft Lawsuit may have significant impact on employment retaliation laws in Washington State."Has multiple Reuters articles on the suit, but they are essentially all the same article. Also some local coverage of the suit. Even so, this would be WP:CRYSTAL event or at best WP:1EVENT. red dogsix (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello reddogsix - This page should remain in Wikipedia for three reasons 1) The Microsoft Lawsuit may have significant impact on employment retaliation laws in Washington State, and is important for residents of Washington State. This in turn may have impact on employment laws on other states as retaliation laws have been the subject of increased Supreme Court action, including rendering an opinion on this case. With the case coming up soon (see reference of June 12, 2017), this subject will only get more interest. Reuters and the news media have covered this and it has been in newspapers globally. How Microsoft navigates employment law is notable for Microsoft as well as technology firms in general. References [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] refer to some of the press coverage available on the net, but do not reflect the number of front pages it received globally on print newspapers. Also while Reuters may indeed have put out essentially the same article, that they published 4 of them is in itself noteworthy. With a trial involving a multinational, any news service must be vigilant in its reporting, erring on the side of caution. At this point in history, while the media may not report on the scale of the trial, the legal community is aware of it's gravity. Finally, that this lawsuit is still moving forward in the next 8 months is relevant. 2) This individual has written and created music with other celebrities through his work in the music field. He is referenced on 3 other existing Wikipedia pages including Alan White, White (Band), List of Progressive Rock Supergroups. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how best to remove the "marked for deletion" warning. Any and all help is appreciated. Cheers! Sdbrown69 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello, Sdbrown69. The tag showing this Article for Deletion discussion will not be removed until the AfD discussion has been concluded. Articles are not kept on the basis that they might become notable in the future. The discussion needs to be based on coverage now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sdbrown69, the article creator, says current pending lawsuit is notable. Which would mean the lawsuit might be justified for an article but not necessarily a biography of a plaintiff. Canuckle (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello, Bondegezou. Thank you for your help in ensuring that this article can be as complete as possible. What makes Wikipedia a useful destination is that it provides a compete picture of interactions of event/people, it provides context for A-Listers in any field by providing information of those relevant in their careers or causes.  In the case of this subject, there are already other wikipedia pages mentioning this subject in the music context.  There exists media for public consumption now. In terms of the lawsuit, that it was the subject of 4 Reuters stories and in multiple print publications also makes it relevant now.  That the supreme court of Washington State weighed in on this makes it notable. However, the combination of interaction with music notables, mentions on existing Wikipedia pages, impact on Microsoft and the tech industry and involvement of a Supreme Court on this individual is notable.  That there may be impact in the future is a separate discussion.There are existing wikipedia articles with much less impact. I'd appreciate any help you can offer to ensure this remains page available. Cheers!  Sdbrown69 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello, Canuckle. That's certainly an option. However I would argue that lawsuits typically are not a named affair that is easily searchable, rather those involved become keywords to discovery.  I also believe that the mix of topics make the individual noteworthy.  I have seen other wikipedia pages that have no references, no other wikipedia mentions or link and are of far less interest to the global community. Cheers! Sdbrown69 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are lower quality articles of less notable things, but those are arguments for deleting those arguments, not for keeping this one: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You need to concern yourself with meeting WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Bondegezou (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)::Thank you, Bondegezou.  This  WP:GNG and WP:BAND is very helpful.Sdbrown69 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep I should begin by saying that I have every one of Stockwell's albums, being a fan of Yes-related stuff! I think this is a marginal case, but there was a certain amount of RS coverage of the law case. I take Canuckle's point that an article on the law case may therefore be more appropriate, but I think there's enough other coverage of Stockwell, including his music, that an article on him is warranted. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt please, because this was literally PRODed by me not only past a month ago and here it is once again, with only considerable puffery, regardless of whether it's neatly formatted and sourced, because there's still quite honestly nothing actually substantial. SwisterTwister   talk  05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - if the lawsuit is of note then it should have its own entry. I don't think being associated with White infers any notability (I don't think that band itself is notable despite the involvement of Alan White. That really just leaves him as being some Microsoft employee and that certainly doesn't infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 09:34, 23 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.