Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott "Skippy" Chapman

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 redirect to Code of Ethics (band). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott "Skippy" Chapman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Supplied refs only mention subject. I also believe that the primary editor of this article is the subject and the WP:COI is evident. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—No comment on the potential COI, but the claimed notability is either actually non-notable, or WP:TOOSOON. Today, the subject appears to fail WP:N. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz believes that just because I know the the subject personally, that I am creating a WP:COI. I believe he has taken offense because he went into the article and placed flags wanting citations. Apparently some of the preceding supporting links no longer work or no longer exist, so I reverted the article and started searching for new supporting links for citation. Walter Görlitz took offense and said I used improper formatting, made changes, etc which I did not. I just reverted to the previous article that may have had some improper formatting but that wasn't me, nor my goal. It was simply to remove his flags while I found new supporting information to use for citing, which is what he wanted in the first place. Just because someone was on a major label for a few records and number 1 songs apparently does not equate to being noteworthy for an article according to the complainant. People update websites and things get removed, but does that mean something is invalid or didn't exist simply because there is no longer a link supporting it? Of course not! But what it does do is makes things harder to cite as things evolve. If Walter Görlitz would have simply messaged me saying "Here are the format errors I found on the page and citations it needs, now clean it up", then things would have been fine. As he would undo my changes, I would lose my new information and citations and would want to revert so I can continue to add citations that he was requesting for in the first place. And because of this back and forth, he now wants to delete the article which I feel is him trying to get back at me instead of trying to be helpful and support the community and the reason for Wikipedia in the first place. It's not difficult to find a resolution to this disagreement, but deleting an article like this is not it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.74.46 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is not about formatting errors, it is about the lack of notability of the musician. Notability is clear. I had concerns when I last edited the article and the edits I saw today reminded me that the subject's notability is in question. It's not about you but about the article. Sorry if the two events coincided and made it appear as though this was personal.

As for messaging you about the problems I found, I did comment when I cleaned-up the article on 2013-08-22. I also gave details about it today, but the problem with anonymous editing is that it's not always clear that the same address will be assigned to the same person for every edit. Communication is more difficult. Editing with an account makes communication much easier.

If you can provide some information here that shows how the subject meets any of the twelve points listed in WP:BAND (that is the subject directly, not bands in which the subject has performed, although point 6 is clear that if the subject is a member of two or more notable bands, they qualify the article could be kept. Alternately, meeting the criteria of WP:GNG would also help the subject qualify. Without support, the article is likely to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz I didn't know or see the comments, and yes, apparently communication has been difficult. I never bothered trying to create an account because I don't spend much time on here and didn't see the point. Maybe I do now.

The problem with finding the evidence online is that, as I've stated, websites are updated and things fall off which leaves things seemingly without support. It will take time. And I don't necessarily want to spend the weekend (but hopefully not the last warm and sunny weekend this year) inside. But at least give me some time to research and find more evidence. There's just a lot of criteria and I need to learn more about wiki and it's proper procedures.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.74.46 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Code of Ethics (band), as he doesn't seem to be independently notable outside of this. He has an Allmusic page here, but it's empty, and a couple of other placeholder pages on other musician sites, but that's about it it. No news or book hits. Was this edit really necessary, as opposed to a general cleanup tag at the top of the page? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.