Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Grubbs


 * 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   keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Todd Grubbs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Why the page should be deleted Tasterson (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has had a tag questioning the notability of this person since 2008, ample time for interested contributors to remedy the sorely lacking notability features of this article. It's also had a "verification" tag since June 2008.

This person's purported notability seems to be based on the fact he plays guitar, has self-released several CDs, has taught guitar for 15 years and attended (briefly, for less than a complete term, no degree) Berklee School of Music, and was mentioned in a number of (mostly) small guitar magazine over 20 years ago (most in the late '80s). He has never played in a notable band (lists "3 Green Windows", links to their personal site, Google brings up no citations at all for this band) and has never been signed to even a small record label nor released even an indie label album, only self-produced and self-released CDs, and those were also in the late '80s to mid-'90s. This article seems long over-due for deletion, with over 3 years sporting a "notability issues" tag. Tasterson (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Nom makes it sound like a sad case, but are we sure of that?
 * PremierGuitar **** Review
 * Adequacy.net Indie Music Reviews (positive)
 * Babyblaue Prog-Reviews (pretty negative) (in German)

Sounds quite close to being notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused because a while back I advocated for keeping an article on a drummer/podcaster Brent Bradley and admins and other editors argued that merely having reviews written about you didn't make you notable, and one major consideration was the fact he had never released an album on anything but a self-produced label, nor had been a member of a band which did so. I came to agree with their assessment, that failing to sell a significant number of albums and merely being reviewed did not make you notable, necessarily. One very cogent argument made, which helped convince me, is the idea that these magazines need grist, they need something to write about, and consequently write about many thousands of bands and individuals: the compelling fact is 'do they advance to the next level from merely interesting to truly notable' and another argued that if anyone wanted information on these individuals, the reviews themselves were more than adequate to do so, Wikipedia did not need to catalog everyone mentioned in every magazine. I think the main points are that this individuals albums have all been self-produced, he was reviewed due to extensive self-promotion, and posted this article about himself, himself (he says so on his personal site). All this is in itself is not reason to not include someone on wikipedia, but the fact that the only notability he has at all is due to self-promotion, and none due to actual accomplishments, seems to make this article smack of another in a series of attempts to self-promote rather than inform the public. There must be millions of musicians with greater accomplishments than reviews in 3 magazines who are not included. However, I defer to the judgement of more experienced editors on this. I think this article is 1. not verifiable, hence the very old (2008) verifiability tag and 2. not notable, hence the 3 year notability tag, during which nothing of substance has been added. Perhaps, if consensus does feel this article is sufficiently notable, this tag should be removed after 3 years? Or, conversely, the article should be deleted. Tasterson (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those (terrible) arguments led to deletion: Articles for deletion/Brent Bradley. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it helps, the criteria for musicians are at WP:MUSICBIO, which in a nutshell says the musician has to meet at least one of the listed criteria, such as having an album in the charts, releasing 2 albums on a major label, etc etc. The criterion that I think applies is number 1: "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician". Guess that means I have to be clear and vote! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understood at the time, Brent Bradley himself keeps submitting the article after is was deleted the first time, either sheer persistence has won the editors over, or the editor(s) who most vociferously argued for deletion have reconsidered, or they just don't care anymore. Actually, BB is, I admit now, probably not notable enough to be in the wiki either. At least one independent or major label release should be attributed to anyone claiming to be a modern, professional musician of note, else what are they notable for? Your own website should certainly not be any kind of criteria, as you can say whatever you wish on your own website, with nothing to back it up. Tasterson (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand, i think. If you follow the link, you will see that the BB article was deleted at AFD due only to the lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. To turn to the matter of Mr. Grubbs, in my opinion you should ask, or seek yourself to ascertain, "What makes adequacy.net a reliable source? What makes Babyblaue a reliable source?" The Premier Guitar source seems solid, so the subject is at least on the brink of notability. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Side note, verification is 1. his personal site 2. an interview with the subject himself. If he is, indeed, notable, wouldn't it follow there would be some other reference to him on the net other than himself? This further backs up the idea most of his perceived "notability" is mere self-promotion. Tasterson (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The Premier Guitar review, this, this, and several articles in the St. Petersburg Times (e.g., , and a few others), is getting there in terms of notability, although I would really like to see more than this.--Michig (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The Premier Guitar review, the review by respectable freelancer Hamilton & the first local paper link are sufficient for me. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Week keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (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.