Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Chacon

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 Charles & Eddie. Clear consensus here to not keep as a standalone article. More vague after that, but WP:ATD argues for the redirect. I don't see any support for hiding the history before redirecting. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Chacon

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

I've been trying to wikify this mess of an article, but am now beginning to question the subject's notability as an individual. Granted, *that* song and act most definitely pass WP:Music, and have their own articles, but I don't feel the subject has done enough to warrant any notability outside of that act. As a photographer, does not meet GNG. Nowhere near. There've been a few examples of songs written by subject that have had some success, but as a composer, subject wouldn't pass WP:Music. There's an argument that the sum of their work (as part of Charles & Eddie, as a composer with isolated pockets of success, and as part of a duo with limited impact (also currently being AfD'd)) could justify an article, but this interpretation of notability seems subjective, or perhaps may be more obvious to someone with more experience, hence the nomination to get some opinions.

If consensus is keep, I'd expect everyone to be in favour of stripping it back completely from its original version prior to my input here to something far more suitable (i.e. ~80% of the article needs to go)

The long and winding bio, seemingly added by an SPA/COI is written poorly - no sources, a rambling narrative which lacks a neutral tone Rayman60 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A member of two notable groups in my view and writing big hit songs for others also makes him notable. There's also some coverage of his work outside the two bands - [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Michig, which is the second notable group? I don't believe he was ever a member of 2 Live Crew. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strike that, I've realised you're talking about The Polyamorous Affair – they weren't wikilinked in the article so I didn't spot the connection at first. But then, I see that article is also up for deletion... Richard3120 (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This seems to be similiar to the recent Paul Tucker (musician) AFD in that the sole reason to include appears to be being in "two notable bands", but one of them is borderline at best and up for AFD itself. As I do not feel the second band justifies an article, I lean toward a weak delete. That said, Eddie is more notable in himself than the second, largely unknown band he is in. KaisaL (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charles & Eddie - seems like the obvious outcome here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as this is basically unsourced and then not convincing for independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 31 August 2016 (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.