Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Tracy (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Much of this article reads like a resume, and seems to be an attempt at "notability by association"... i.e., none of the awards are actually for "his" work, per se, but albums/TV shows that he has worked on in some capacity. To wit, just because an album is nominated for an award doesn't mean that every single person associated in some way with that album is notable. Similarly, the award for School of Hard Knocks was in the "Schools Factual Secondary" category of the British Academy Children's Awards, and not in a music category, and thus to claim notability by association in that regard (or to call it the BAFTA for best documentary) seems disingenuous. Most of the references provided are merely credits in which his name is mentioned (among others) without any actual coverage; some don't even mention him at all (i.e., the quote from Billboard that is prominently placed in the lead of the article doesn't state his name). To state that he is "known for playing guitar and mixing records" doesn't seem justified; unless there are actual reliable sources indicating how this specific individual meets WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:GNG, I recommend deletion. Kinu t /c  22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: an article at this title was previously deleted, but it was about a different individual with the same name. -- Kinu t /c  22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia editing, this is the only article I have worked on. Working on the article has been a great learning experience for me, gathering the sources and gaining insite from other editors. It does read a little like a resume, however, I find Todd Tracy notable because he is credited with mixing, editing, playing guitar and bass on an album that has increased in notability, in fact evidence of cult status for the album is provable and growing. His role on the album is not just in "some capacity", he recorded and mixed the album and played the guitar parts, I have the album in front of me and he is clearly listed top of the line. Produced by Skee-lo and Walter Kahn assisted by Todd Tracy. Third name on Album of like a hundred names. Also, he is listed as a musician and a third time special thanks from the president of the record company. No other person is given three credits on the album. So it is "his" work that was nominated for Best Rap Album. Music people and fans really get into who did what and he did a lot. Secondly, School of Hard Knocks won a BAFTA, he was the composer for the show, thats notable. Thirdly, the quote from Billboard clearly states that he is the composer and then Larry flick goes on to talk about the composition of the song. Billboard found it notable. Fourth, on Jennifer Paige's wiki page it clearly talks about the song that got the deal leading to her number one worlwide hit. Todd Tracy is credited with engineering that song. Fifth point, I have a new third party source, The Album Network published an expose on Todd Tracy and review, this will clearly meet the guidlines and I would hate for the article and all my work to be deleted just as I have tracked down the ten year old article published about Todd Tracy. Sixth point, I find it fascinating that he was associated with all of these different acts, performing different roles for each. Composing for this one engineering for that one, playing guitar for others, mixing others, producing more, now I have found singing (critically acclaimed) notable for its wide range roles. I keep on finding more references the more I look. I have found references to this guy all over the place, I will admit more so to his work than he but I know it exists. I am going to make the article better. I will rework the lead and ad the new sources. Some editors have expressed frustration over my very humble wiki abilities, but those abilities are growing and I have many ideas for new and existing articles. This is my first time and I have run into every problem but am learning thru fixing the probs. Sorry for being a pain in the ass but I will get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh one other point, he was awarded at least two gold records and a golden reel award for his efforts on the album. So he did win awards. Working on issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: There've been a few AfDs lately for articles on sound engineers, and the creators are making two basic and repeated mistakes. One is not realizing that when we say "notable" on Wikipedia we mean whether a subject meets the criteria of the GNG and WP:BIO, WP:ORG and other subsidiary guidelines, not "I think he's important."  The second mistake - and one shared by a great many experienced editors - is in not understanding that the subsidiary criteria merely indicates a presumption of notability: that if you meet one of those criteria, it's likely you'll pass the GNG.  But the GNG is never waived outright.  It's the case here.  Just as we don't give an automatic pass to the composer, the cover artist, the band's financial manager, the producer and everyone else involved in an album, we don't give a pass to the sound engineers either.  Why?  Because the world hasn't heard of them.  Prove that the subject passes the GNG, and I'll change my vote.   Ravenswing  18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I get it now, the GNG is a guidline that helps to presume notability but not establish it. Multiple third party sources such as album credits don't cut it because the world hasn't heard of them, just some guys name on record that millions of people around the world bought. Also a song review from Billboard doesn't count because subject is only listed as the writer of the song not the singer, only music people read Billboard, hardly gets out to the world. I dont know why billboard lists the writers anyway?, they probably only list the writer of the song that their talking about for industry people not the general public. Receiving two gold records certified by the RIAA for playing guitar and engineering doesn't count as receiving an major award because gold records dont count. The National Acadamy of Recording Arts and Sciences nomination is not really concerned with the actual recording or the music, its just a marketing thing nobody listens to the music, certainly not for a silly catagory like Best Rap Album, thats not a televised catagory so who cares. In rap you dont have a lot of guitar solos its really just about the rap, so if a subject plays a major role in the creation of an album, thats not notable because nobody cares about the engineer. A Golden reel from the Ampex corporation, thats just an industry thing not a world thing. I get it. So the definition "The World" is?, well what ever it is-it overides the presumtion of the guidlines, no wiggle room there. We are only concerned with verifiable facts, this is not a popularity contest. The fact of the matter is you dont give passes to composers who's work is written about in internationally published trademags, you won't give that pass to engineers of "good" rap albums even if they play the guitar solo in the sony pictures film, people only "listen" to the guitar solo, doesn't count. It has been worthwhile to learn about anti deleationist manifesto's and waivers for guidlines that have been met because of misunderstood presumtions derived from follwing such guidlines, its the pass from the Hockey guy that we are looking for. I am all over it-I am an anti deleationist. No just kidding, working on getting the pass, my new source from the Album Network's Virtually Alternative Magazine is on the way, the company was bought by Clear Channel so I spoke with the editor of the now out of print mag last night in Berlin, Johnathan Rosen, he is sending me a copy of the magazine, it might come to late for this article, just have to appeal when all sources lined up all propper like. Thank you for taking the time sifting thru this crap, I have learned tonnes. Do you guys think you could throw me a bone as to how to make the article not read like resume? you guys rock and are totally professional. Remember never presume that I am anti-deleationist, I don't pass on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm and a defensive effort only undermine your desire to preserve this article. Instead of ranting, your efforts would be better spent trying to show how WP:GNG is satisfied by actually finding significant coverage about this individual in multiple reliable sources. "We are only concerned with verifiable facts, this is not a popularity contest." You said it yourself. To correct you, WP:GNG does establish notability... the subsidiary criteria, such as WP:BIO, do not, they only presume it. Work he has been involved with has won awards, but the awards themselves do not convey notability unless there are actual sources discussing his personal involvement with said work. In other words, WP:GNG still must be met, which it has not. When Ravenswing says "[b]ecause the world hasn't heard of them", it's not a issue of popularity... it's a conclusion based on the fact that the subject has not been written about in any depth in secondary sources. As this is an encyclopedia, without any secondary sources, there generally is no basis for an article. -- Kinu t /c  03:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My opologies, I almost went over the edge there. WP GNG needs to be met, slow learner. --Fred berns (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Quality references to support inclusion and meets minimum guidelines for article inclusion.--Carol1946 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how the arguments to delete address the lack of depth of sourcing, it might be a good idea to be more specific and state which sources can be used to show that WP:GNG is met. As your account was registered today and the only contributions to date are to AfD discussions, it might be a good idea to answer. -- Kinu t /c  06:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User blocked. Nakon  06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive changed my mind we should just get rid of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2011 (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.