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, since the discussion seems to lean towards the conclusion that the inclusion guideline is met. And yes, subjects of BLPs generally aren't supposed to edit their own articles, so sorry if that means more work for the OTRS team! Deryck C. 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Pierce[edit]

Shawn Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of the article has contacted OTRS (ticket #2012011410006747) and claims that the article contains numerous inaccuracies and would like it deleted. I am requesting deletion on their behalf, and take no view on the article itself. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think an audio engineer and a television score composer elects to be in the public eye, and cannot justify keeping an article at this level of notability against the wishes of the subject. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone point me to our policy in this regard? We have many individuals, I expect, who would prefer that their wp article be deleted. In the interim, I've deleted uncited text from the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some interesting background as to how such requests have been handled in the distant past ... here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as far as I can tell he easily passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC for multiple award wins and noms. About the claimed "numerous inaccuracies" he can edit the article and provide better sources, AfD is not for cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article meets WP:BAND #8. Agree with Cavarrone AfD is not for cleanup. If the article is being vandalised, steps at that project can deal with it. Argolin (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  what specific works has he personally won awards for? There are no independent RS for award wins. applicability of BAND 8 therefore rests only on nominations: weaker still. BAND says "may be notable". none of his nominations have generated significant coverage, so why contend here that "may be" = "is"? you should also reject Cavarrone's contemptible implication that open editing makes it acceptable and practical to blackmail subjects into maintaining their articles for life. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2012 (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.