Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Aaron

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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aaron

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

~~NN as a professional musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Article is here because he is suspected in a loud crime, but that is of course inappropriate. -- Y not? 15:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nom withdrawn. Thanks for fixing up this article. Looks great. -- Y not? 11:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:MUSBIO criteria #5 and #10. He has recorded with numerous notable performers including David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Amy Winehouse, Tom Jones, Wyclef Jean, Willie Nelson, Luscious Jackson, Mýa, Blondie;[1] and he has release several solo albums, including “Trouble Man”[2] [3][4] which was released in 2010. All of the above is in addition to the notoriety he has recently gained in connection to the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman. Dolovis (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #5 refers to the primary performer on the album (the person whose name is on the front cover), not to every individual session musician they hired to play on it. The solo album doesn't cut it, either: it's not on a major or prominent indie label, which #5 requires, and it's one album, when #5 requires at least two. And there's been no evidence presented that he passes #10 (television or movie theme song), either. And you have to be able to properly demonstrate that they've garnered coverage in reliable sources which verifies that they've met the criterion — a person whose article asserts that they've passed an NMUSIC criterion can still be deleted if reliable source coverage about them doesn't exist to verify the assertion. (Claiming to pass an NMUSIC criterion that can't actually be verified anywhere is actually one of the standard tricks that musicians who aren't notable enough to have Wikipedia articles yet regularly try to pull over on us. So it's the sourcing that can be provided to support the assertion, not the assertion itself, that makes an article keepable.) But you haven't provided RS coverage here, as the "referencing" support you provided above for the solo album relies entirely on primary sources, and the references in the article aren't any better. Which leaves us with only the Hoffman situation as a notability claim — but as I explain below, we have some very important privacy-related reasons why that can't stand either. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive claim of notability here; the article just lists a lot of session musician credits without properly sourcing that he's been the subject of enough coverage to get past WP:GNG for any of them, and thus fails to demonstrate that he passes WP:NMUSIC at all. So the only substantive claim of notability here is the Hoffman arrest — but that makes him a WP:BLP1E and also violates WP:CRIMINAL, which strongly advises that for BLP reasons we should avoid creating articles about people who have been charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Bio would not be here, save for the Hoffman stuff, which makes this a BLP violation. -- Y not? 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Criteria #10 of NMUSIC states “Has performed music for a work of media that is notable”, which is certainly true for this musician who has performed music on many notable albums including Blondie's The Hunter, David Bowie's Let's Dance, and Amy Winehouse's Frank (to name just three of the many notable albums listed in the article). The body of work performed by Robert Aaron over his lengthy musical career is certainly significant, notable, and verifiable by Allmusic.com and the CD lining notes for each album listed in the article. He demonstrably meets Criteria #10, and if news of his arrest (which was added to the article after its creation) is a violation of WP:CRIMINAL then that sentence within the article should properly be removed (as it now has been). Dolovis (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #10 does not apply to working as a session musician on another musician's album. It applies to being the primary-billed performer of a television or movie theme song, or a song on a compilation album — it does not at all cover what you're trying to invoke it for. And furthermore, inclusion in Allmusic — a database which has a page about every single musician who's ever had a credit on any album at all, and thus counts for about as much in the notability sweepstakes as a page on IMDB does — is not a criterion that automatically entitles a person to a Wikipedia article if substantive media coverage is not there to support one. It is permissible for secondary verification of facts after their notability has been properly demonstrated by the use of stronger sources, but it is not enough to support an article if it is the strongest source you can come up with. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week~~ keep - There's some serious problems with this article. The credits all go to allmusic.com. I'm not clear on if it's considered reliable~~, and I can't even load the links given (not sure if it's my fault)~~. But, there is substantial coverage of this person, even though it's for a bad reason. There is a full length article in the NY Times, amongst others, which kinda tips this over on the keep side. I realize we normally avoid giving bio articles to a person because they're caught up in a single news event, particularly allegations of a crime. But, in this case, the coverage seems to be quite substantial about the person, and detailing their life *before* the event, giving a basis for a biography, that has more bio details than most musician bios (which are little more than credit lists, stats, and reviews). So, this should be kept per WP:GNG. There's been an overreach of WP:CRIMINAL here. WP:CRIMINAL helps protect people who are alleged (but not convicted of something) from having a whole bio made up of unproven allegations, and having nothing else to say about them. In this case, we seem to have substantial and balanced coverage of the person from reliable sources, that can make a NPOV article about their life+career, going well beyond just one tragic event. --Rob (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Obviously the NYT coverage wouldn't exist if not for the BLP reason. This needs to be taken into account. Of course BLP1E cases are going to have a bunch of coverage - the public thirsts to know suspects in noisy crimes, including their life *before* the event. Doesn't make the article any more appropriate under BLP1E. I'd like to post it on the BLP noticeboard, get some more eyeballs on this thing. -- Y not? 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you feel about this article from Press-Republican, which seems to have substantial coverage unrelated to recent events? Anyways, we agree more eyeballs would be good. --Rob (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like it, it's a great source. -- Y not? 16:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This bit in The New Yorker may be relevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A mere mention. We have already established that he exists :) -- Y not? 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've improved the article somewhat. The prose no longer depends on AllMusic at all. PressRepublican confirmed notability before the alleged event occurred. Without even mentioning the allegations, the article demonstrates notability. --Rob (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , support for User:Dolovis and Rob and User:Y positions Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2014 (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.