Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragbaby Stephens
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Ragbaby Stephens[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ragbaby Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough sources to write an article of substance. Unsourced since 2009. Vmavanti (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It is high time we removed all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The issue is whether sources exist, not whether they are in the article. I don't have time to look right now and therefore won't comment on notability, but delete !votes that solely comment on the lack of sources in the article and not those that may or may not exist elsewhere should be disregarded. Smartyllama (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The previous comment is correct: per WP:NEXIST the current state of sourcing in an article is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Sources could exist. With that being said, this gentleman has been listed in pre-Internet sources on the early New Orleans jazz scene. I found him listed at various events of interest that were described in two books: A Trumpet around the Corner: The Story of New Orleans Jazz by S. Charters and The Story of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band by H.O. Brunn. He also has a mention as a historical figure of interest in a walking tour of New Orleans jazz sites ([1]). Unfortunately I can find nothing beyond basic listings of his presence somewhere and he seems to have no significant coverage of his own works and career. The article may have been created by a relative or local historian who did some archival research, but for Wikipedia, personal interest does not outweigh notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I have added one source, from the Samuel Charters book. Some other sources appear to give the subject's first name as Mike rather than Joe: [2], [3]. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I saw the Google Books source that AllyD added to the article yesterday. I always search before I submit a proposal for deletion. I have a shelf full of books. I look before I leap, think before I type. The documentation says we can't use a source that mentions the subject only in passing, and that's what this source does, though it looks like an interesting book I might read. There are only a few sentences about Ragbaby Stevens in that book. That's not enough to sustain an article. I propose that AllyD revert her edit. If we retain only this one, thin source, then the article will likely receive a "this article relies on only one source" template. Then what? Then nothing. Wait another eleven years for someone to touch this article? Has AllyD or anyone else found any other sources with enough content to provide an article of substance? I suspect not. That is why the article should be deleted. No sourced content, no article.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I saw the Google Books source that AllyD added to the article yesterday. I always search before I submit a proposal for deletion. I have a shelf full of books. I look before I leap, think before I type. The documentation says we can't use a source that mentions the subject only in passing, and that's what this source does, though it looks like an interesting book I might read. There are only a few sentences about Ragbaby Stevens in that book. That's not enough to sustain an article. I propose that AllyD revert her edit. If we retain only this one, thin source, then the article will likely receive a "this article relies on only one source" template. Then what? Then nothing. Wait another eleven years for someone to touch this article? Has AllyD or anyone else found any other sources with enough content to provide an article of substance? I suspect not. That is why the article should be deleted. No sourced content, no article.
- "delete !votes that solely comment on the lack of sources in the article and not those that may or may not exist elsewhere should be disregarded". That's absurd. The existence of Wikipedia articles depends on the existence of sources, no matter where they may occur. No sources, no article. Simple as that. Don't make it complicated. It's not rocket science.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- "delete !votes that solely comment on the lack of sources in the article and not those that may or may not exist elsewhere should be disregarded". That's absurd. The existence of Wikipedia articles depends on the existence of sources, no matter where they may occur. No sources, no article. Simple as that. Don't make it complicated. It's not rocket science.
- Comment - (I voted above.) The one book source that has been added to the article does not help with the gentleman's notability, because the book only briefly listed him as a member of an ensemble that is itself only briefly discussed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 21 April 2020 (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.