Deletion of Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial

Comment: Now ''there's'' the Tarc I remember. Regardless of any speculations about motives, the bottom line is that the article passes  and does so with flying colors. The comments of {{U|Andy Dingley}} and {{U|Centpacrr}} ring very true
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It wasn't a minor event; Hendrix faced 20 years in prison for smuggling heroin across international borders! Further, virtually all sources agree that the drugs were planted on Hendrix and that the bust had been set-up. So, I fail to see how the biggest star in North America being framed for drug smuggling is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Per : "If a topic has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tarc is jumping to some wild conclusions here (remember AGF). There is so much that can be said about this historical and interesting event that it cannot be done justice at Jimi Hendrix without creating a  situation. The article easily meets  and , and when its done it will be 5,000+ words or more with 12–24 reliable secondary sources. This is one of the most notable events in the life of Jimi Hendrix and I've seen articles of one paragraph and two cites that were kept. I created this article in much the same way that I created Death of Jimi Hendrix. There is so much to say and so little space to say it at the overview article.  is irrelevant if this incident meets the general notability guidelines, which it absolutely does. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE||WP:EVENTCRIT||WP:GNG||WP:POINTY)

Comment: The article gives |undue weight to this non-notable event that shouldn't have a stand-alone page. Yes, it can be argued this was an important event Hendrix's life but many notable people have important events happen in their life (marriages for example). That fact that it was "important for them" doesn't merit it as being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hendrix, while he was a use of drugs, is not notable for his involvement with drugs- he is notable for his music. The article can be paraphrased as: "Hendrix had drugs on him, was charged with possession, he could have faced 20 years but didn't." I can't see why anyone looking up Hendrix be looking for more than that. Kudos to the |pointiness and |redundant fork. The lack of press coverage at the time (circumstances aside) concerns me too. Many sources are from significantly after the event - they're neutrality is questionable. Given the creator's super-aggressive and often straw man arguments, I think the creator is unquestionably |not being neutral, I interpret the notability of the event as being largely exaggerated by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:POINT||WP:REDUNDANTFORK||WP:NPOV)