Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Vinatea (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. No significant coverage, no biography. Courcelles 00:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Vinatea

edit
AfDs for this article:
Edward Vinatea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement - The only verifiable fact contained in this article is that the subject is a mixing and mastering engineer. His claims of nominations for awards cannot be verified, and the remainder of the article is comprised of name dropping. Their is no verifiable notability for this very non-notable mixing and a mastering engineer. Quable (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The fact that the article has already been AFD'ed twice, and both times the result was "no consensus," means that maybe the gentleman is on the verge of notability as his own person. But for now all of his notability is by association. His list of production credits appears elsewhere but on Wikipedia such a list is merely unencyclopedic name-dropping and self-promotion. Sorry, sir. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Keep proponents in the previous AfDs solely based their stance on the fact that being an engineer for prominent musicians means that the subject somehow passes WP:MUSIC and is notable. Errr, excuse me? Do we also cite the artist who did the album cover art, or the musician's agent, both of whom likewise materially contribute to a musician's success? Of course not, because notability is not inherited. Beyond that, this unwarranted stretching of the notability criteria misses the fundamental premise of notability criteria: that you can claim notability for (say) a popular artist because someone with a song at the top of the Billboard charts can be presumed to be featured in multiple citations in reliable sources, and so pass the GNG. No such presumption can be made about a sound engineer, be the musicians for whom he works ever so notable. So ... show me the sources. Period.  Ravenswing  15:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I participated in the original AFD. My position from that first AFD still stands. This a case where notability is being made through association. It didn't fly for me then, and it still doesn't this time around. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep - Mastering engineers are considered notable when their artists are nominated for a Grammy. Call it *name dropping* if ya like but thats how we measure them. There was press coverage. Im not gonna go looking for stuff written online cause that point alone is good enuff for me. We do have rules and guidelines but they also bend for some situations. Jrod2 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep + comments.I never liked Jrod's use of slang on talk pages and cared very little for his work at Wikipedia, but in all fairness, this time is clear to me that the AfD nominator doesn't understand wiki policies. No matter how much you don't like the citations or you think the subject isn't notable for Wikipedia, you can't delete critical links like this [1] then do a WP:AfD. A proper action would be to voice concerns or ask questions to the main editors at talk page, but stripping an article off like that disqualifies his nomination. 95.211.27.70 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — 95.211.27.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: "Critical" links? I would consider a "critical" link one that would count towards supporting notability. A one-line quote from Vinatea (as opposed to about Vinatea) does not count as a reliable source. A user-entered submission on allmusic.com does not count as a reliable source. And speaking to Jrod2's comment, "mastering engineers are considered notable when their artists are nominated for a Grammy?" Says who? Notability is still not inherited. While we're talking about rules and guidelines, here's one: it is the responsibility of editors advocating Keep to supply sources when challenged. Far from there being "press coverage," as he alleges, a G-News search for "Edward Vinatea" [2] turns up nothing. No hits, at all. So if there is purportedly press coverage, my answer is this: show us the links. I say there ARE none.  Ravenswing  05:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources that were removed failed to meet the criteria for being reliable. So pointing to them as a reason for keeping the article is dubious. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep I'm a deletionist like user Ravenswing but I still think Vinatea has the bare minimums to meet WP:BIO and WP:Music. I found this from the Huffington Post [3] and the Democratic Underground [4]. I also noticed that the biggest mastering engineer in the whole world Bob_Katz has no G-News and looking at his page not much for references either, yet he is the most famous of them all. Ubot16 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How do those meet the criteria of significant coverage in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I already addressed those links in my previous comments. That being said, Ubot16 is a SPA who drops in every few months to participate in (or nominate) a couple AfD discussions. This is the third AfD where he's come in out of the blue to echo Jrod2's position, and his first edits were undoing changes made to Jrod2's talk page. I suspect a WP:SOCK violation.  Ravenswing  16:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a keepist, if that's a word, and even I think this should be deleted. All the references are pages where the subject's name can be self-submitted, except for the Huffington Post, and that article has nothing to do with the subject's career, and merely mentions his profession as an adjective to go with his quote on an unrelated topic. ArchieOof (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
commentsI am sorry Ravenswing, Jrod2 is on my watch and I can see why it looks that way, but since you think I am puppet, I've stricken my comments from this AfD. I am still new and I don't understand the system all that well. Regards 216.55.165.136 (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prefer keeping where possible (although usually come in on ones not worth it...). I can see a man doing a job. Probably a good job, but a job. No reliable references worth tuppence given. Discogs and allmusic are submitted material, and the Huffington Post one is just a quote from Vinatea which may be taken to indicate that he is a mastering engineer. If better referencing from reliable sources were to be found, then I'd willingly reconsider. But, like some jobs in the film industry and others like ghostwriters, notability can be hard to show for what are essentially backroom jobs. Peridon (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Mastered grammy nominated artist Geri King. Comments: I've never contributed to this subject before but as some users have already said, mastering engineers are by nature name droppers and piggy backers, and most nothing but a bunch of "prima donnas". The subject displays many professional aspects-"a multifaceted"-and is an unsual situation per WP:BIO. 209.44.123.5 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — 209.44.123.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - So basically, he does not meet WP:BIO, but he should be kept because of name-dropping. Did I interpret your comments correctly, because that's not a very sound reason for keeping an article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Whpq didn't question that the anon IP claimed that this was an "unusual situation" - the IP said so specifically, after all. My own thought on that is much the same, though, as Whpg's: quite aside from that, in point of fact, there is no "unusual situation" clause on WP:BIO, is there any basis for this belief other than a desire that sound engineers be presumptively notable? I'd suggest, if so, that this AfD is not the proper venue to do this, and that lobbying at WP:MUSIC's talk page be preferable.  Ravenswing  14:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. That doesn't necessarily work that way for mastering engineers. It also turns out that Quable removed some pdf from the book of Grammys that where in the article itself [5]. It gives reference to Ashley Altman and Geri King, both nominated for Grammy awards, both Vinatea's artists. On the second AfD someone found out that song writers Tom Glide and Ekayani [6][7] had two wins with an album Vinatea worked on called "Yoga On The Dancefloor And Sanskrit Mantras". It won Best Urban Track & Record Of the Year 2008 and Best Urban Track 2007 at The New Century Peoples Choice Award [8] [9][10] [11] [12] and it was rated 4 stars by Time Out New York mag [13][14]. How much does a successful record depend on the an engineer's work? I think it goes hand in hand with the artists and needs to be taken into consideration. I would like to see more press coverage and more substantive editing on this article, but we should allow people to further develop it 112.140.185.250 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The removed PDFs are of dubious value. It's unclear what they represent as they are bits and pieces uploaded to Commons. In any case, the documents make no mention of Edward Vinatea. They look to be there only to support assertions that the song is notable. So again, like all the others indicating "keep" in this AFD, and the previous AFDs, it's an assertion that notability is inherited in this case. In fact, you go on to opine "How much does a successful record depend on the an engineer's work? I think it goes hand in hand with the artists and needs to be taken into consideration." So if this truly is the case, where is the documentation of this significant relationship that allows us to come to the conclusion that a mastering engineer's role is so material to a hit song's success that notability is automatically conferred? -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question.- Are you saying that the Grammy PDF is a hoax now? Are you accusing somebody of making hoaxes? How can this not be of value as a reference? It's also at the Geri King wiki. The docs make no mention of any engineer, even the producer, but it is considered their work as well... 204.152.202.162 (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - No, I am not saying it is a hoax. If I thought it were a hoax, I'd have said so. What I am saying is that these PDFs are some document with very little context uploaded to Commons. It is not clear what these files are supposed to be sourcing when they don't mention Edward Vinatea at all. So I ask, you want is the value of the reference? -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep = If I may answer that for you Mr. WPHQ, if the subject had never worked on Altman and King's albums someone would have raised that point a long time ago. I also think The 49th Grammy Entry list pdf represents that his work yields results and that he is part of a professional team with a degree of success in the record industry. Mastering is the sound of the production and a huge responsibility to bear. For instance, if an untold number of copies didn't sound great, it would be a great embarrassment to the artist, the producers and the record labels. I am actually surprised someone hasn't written already a biography for Ashley. I am a Brazilian native living in the middle America and I always enjoy reading this site very much. Best to my knowledge, there are checks and balances at Wikipedia, and between readers and editors, there are millions just like me. If something isn't true someone sends a complaint to the support desk or it's removed from the article by an active editor. Let me make example of why things don't and shouldn't get removed all the time: Chris Ottaunick worked on the photography for YoYo Ma's "Obrigado Brazil" [15]. How do we know this is true? We don't. Billboard doesn't mention it and there is no extensive coverage to support it's true either. [16]. Some delete users might argue that this has to be removed as well. But up to this point nobody has ever questioned the veracity of that photo credit. Wouldn't the real photographer (or anyone familiar with that record) have raised a flag to delete that information by now? And, what about observing good faith, Gentlemen? Are the main editors and the users who have contributed to that bio, way off the mark here? We are not talking about removing one dubious credit, or one paragraph that needs citations, but an entire article. It's one thing to create a deception, and another to make a human error. Maybe the entire article needs to be revised. I don't know, but there seems to be evidence all around us that this engineer is the real thing and deserves a place at Wikipedia. If someone owns that Ashley Altman CD, please come forward and confirm that this isn't a doctored pic of her album [17]. If someone owns the book of The 49th Grammy Entry List, come forward and confirm that this wasn't doctored either [18]. Until then and in good faith, I am going with Keep. Thank you. 66.36.251.196 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.-... There seems to be a notion among members that if an engineer has no significant press coverage then he is not notable and that's plain wrong. I repeat plain wrong. WP:BIO states that a subject doesn't have to be famous. You can't also compare this type of work with graphic design, that's ridiculous. This subject does have some web coverage and he is certainly up to the par of other engineers included on Wikipedia. If you ask yourself, why would a journalist from the Huffington Post quote him in an article? The answer is, there was an interview online or on paper that nobody has seen yet. [19]. Deleting a biography just like that really discourages users to create new ones and that's damaging to this project. I say, give this article another year and see if we need to nominate again. 204.152.202.162 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — 204.152.202.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Vinatea_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137819922"