Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Lauren Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:33 (UTC)

Lauren Brown

  • Non-notable, vanity. -- Natalinasmpf 04:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Member of a hall of fame == notable. Pburka 04:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Also on the 2+ year requests. I don't understand why people want so many things deleted. As long as it's not people posting info about themselves, whats the big deal. You don't have to look at it if you don't want to. I'm sure this is very discouraging to a lot of people. I feel like I shouldn't even participate if people are going to delete my contributions. It takes a lot more work for you people to delete stuff than it does for you to leave it alone. --Matthewjhale
    • Yes, people might want to check "what links here before they label something as "vanity". Kappa 08:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't have to look at it if you don't want to. It takes a lot more work for you people to delete stuff than it does for you to leave it alone. — Both of those are highly flawed arguments. The first is flawed because what we want to look at doesn't enter into it. The second is flawed because leaving bad stuff alone is pretty much the opposite of what editors are encouraged to do. Uncle G 12:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
      • When you say "what we want to look at", are you speeking for millions of people who come here? You shouldn't do that. I've seen plenty of stuff on this site that I personally don't give a rip about but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. And it looks like people agree. --Matthewjhale
        • I repeat: What we want to look at doesn't enter into it. Uncle G 16:46, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
          • Though the argument may not have been fully stated, it has merit. (Wikipedia is not paper). In this case the subject of the biographical article is clearly notable enough for a verifiable, NPOV article and we are wasting our time voting. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • See above for the highly flawed arguments propounded by Matthewjhale that are actually being discussed here, as opposed to the completely different argument that you are propounding and then defending. Uncle G 02:53, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
              • I did read Matthewjhales argument and chose to discuss its substance rather than the details of how he stated it. Dystopos 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • You discussed a completely different argument, as I said. Uncle G 15:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Keep. Due to the hall of fame and member of a touring band. Capitalistroadster 04:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No kidding...playing in a band for Lawrence Welk seems natable to me. --Matthewjhale
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. DS1953 05:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for hall of fame membership and most importantly touring with Lawrence Welk Tuf-Kat 08:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - obviously not vanity -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg 11:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedily. I'd like to think the artists immortalized in Wiki didn't have short careers in music followed by 30 years at a meat packing plant. That really shows this persons art is etched deep in to the american psyche doesn't it. Any plumbers out there who had a demo tape made in the 70's want a wiki entry? --0001 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information is worth an encyclopedic article.Qwertzy2
  • Very weak delete: The problem is that the article establishes only one reason for notability -- the connection to Lawrence Welk. Surely that's not all it takes to get into the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame? Is that it? Playing behind a Geritol banner gets you there? I'm voting on the article and not the topic. The article says, essentially, "some dude." That's not right. Geogre 17:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • comment. WP:Vfd is not the place to edit articles. You can do that directly by clicking the "edit this page" tab. VfD is a place to nominate and eliminate articles that have no hope of becoming encyclopedic. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From reading the arguments presented above (and other topics above), it appears that all one has to do to circumvent any guidelines on notability is one of:
(a) Create a request for an article before creating the article. The fact that there is a request should preclude any examination.
and/or
(b) Declare an organization with substring "hall of fame". Anything that calls itself a hall of fame shall not be subject to further scrutiny. Perhaps I'll start the "Any Topic I Want To Keep Hall of Fame" and start inducting members.
--Tabor 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While I don't understand why a particular topic should not be accepted, and personally feel that any factual information on any topic should be allowed, I am willing to accept that there are some general rules that have been established to guide the Wikipedia and that they should be followed. With that said, I would like to point out that I am new here, and with my three pages that are up for a vote, I was just trying to tie up some loose ends that had been around for awhile. I also feel that the Wikipedia would be better served by people sharing new information rather than deleting it. However, I will try to spend my time on more important topics and hopefully topics that I actually know something about. As far as my three practice runs, keep them or delete them. Sorry for the long post but I didn't know where else to put it. --Matthewjhale
  • Keep I see nothing wrong here, and it's clearly not vanity. Volatile 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please why should we erase it Yuckfoo 23:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hundreds of people must have toured with Lawrence Welk. A nice story to tell your grandkids, but hardly encyclopedic. And the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is hardly anything of note either. -R. fiend 16:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and not that being on requested articles means shit or anything, but I doubt this was the Lauren Brown requested. The name brings up many hits, but this one doesn't seem to register. -R. fiend 16:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:BIO, while not official policy, has this guideline for deceased persons: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" A "Hall of Fame" recognition, even in Nebraska, seems to more than satisfy the requirement. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Do any of us have any idea what the criteria for entry into the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame are? Or if it's even a legit hall of fame? If members of it are so notable why doesn't it have its own article? I'll note that googling "lauren brown" lawrence welk got me a whopping 6 unique google hits, only 2 of them relevant. Far from "wide", sounds liek a pretty narrowly recognized contribution to me. By the way, his son's in the hall of fame too. Where's his article? -R. fiend 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The Nebraska Music Hall of Fame isn't the Kennedy Center Honors. But it is real and verifiable. And it establishes notability sufficient for Wikipedia. Google is not known for widely recognizing the accomplishments of people who did not make their contributions in the field of Linux development or pornography. I'll leave it to you to add Brown's son to the list of requested articles. Dystopos 21:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Not the Kennedy Center is right. From their website: "Long term goals include the establishment of a permanent home for the Hall of Fame to display memorabilia, instruments, photos, sound recordings, etc. of all Nebraska Artists". I take it that means they don't have physical presence anywhere of yet, which means the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is a basically just a website. And while Linux developers and porn stars are overly represented in google searches, a mere 2 google hits is miniscule for anyone and anything. I get more than that. -R. fiend 23:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Nevertheless, Brown's role did make a contribution and it is recognized and verifiable. Dystopos 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "...with Lawrence Welk and His Champagne Music for over 3 years as featured soloist on records in California and on national radio broadcasts". [1] Soloists are notable. Kappa 21:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with User:R.fiend. JamesBurns 06:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable meatpacker. The sole piece of evidence for his "notability" is an amateurish website which claims to be a "hall of fame". I could put up a website and become a hall of fame too. Lots of people played with Welk, so let's list them in Welk's article and then break out the truly notable ones from there. If anyone finds evidence of significant notability from some sort of legitimate reference and I'll change my vote. Gamaliel 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G and Tabor. Quale 04:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Lauren_Brown&oldid=1493867"