Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure the Spin Dr.
Point 10 has not been addressed, it is being picked apart :) The criterion states specifically that a person can perform a theme for a television show. It does not state the length of time in which that performance must be played--some tv theme songs are less than 15 seconds long, but they would absolutely qualify underneath this segment of the rule. The Youtube clip is evidence that Structure was not only heard but shown on ESPN during Briggs' entrance; the clip is not the reference being cited itself. Is the work of media (the television broadcast) notable? According to the breadth of coverage of the television event and viewership yes it was. Did Structure play a theme for the broadcast? Yes he did--not only that, but he was shown during the broadcast playing it. This goes beyond what almost every other performer does for similar segments or themes--if he is non-notable as you infer, why show him? Why cover him on television? That's not the point however, because he was shown on television and he did perform the theme which means, by the very definition of this clause he is notable under the bio musician clause. Is he extraordinarily notable? Of course not, but few Wikipedia subjects are, and by the black and white definition of this policy he is notable. The only real argument is whether or not it's enough for him to have his own article, and I've already included this event in the Briggs article in case of that event. Following the logic, blind of all efforts to apply caveats on the criterion, Structure is notable in this case. I'm not fighting for this article to be kept for its own sake, I'm trying to impart my reading of the logic of this criterion and each reply doesn't have the same logic to it. I've heard that A) he is not a performer and B) he is only tangentially involved, which is untrue. The individual performed the theme solo--how is that tangential? And  itself states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". It states ''in the very definition of the policy'' that a DJ ''is'' recognized as a performer. The argument is just plain wrong.Following up on some other points, equating a television theme to radio bumper music is inaccurate as per point 10 of the policy and is a matter of your own opinion. In addition, just check the rest of the sources to confirm it was Structure who played during Briggs' entrance, you don't have to presume (the sources do not state that more than one was playing at the time). You also appear to be assuming that the quality of recording was equivalent to the quality it would have been in broadcast, which one cannot know, but I would likely presume was not. But that doesn't matter at all--the quality of sound in a program. The only thing that matters is if the subject literally passes one of the litmus tests, which they do. Again, criterion #10 has not been addressed, what has occurred is that the merits of a literal reading of criterion #10, and the use of it period, is being called into question, which is not the purpose of this AFD. Nor is a discussion of whether or not certain editors feel that DJs don't qualify as performers, as they have provided no reliable evidence of this theory
— User:Jeremy112233, 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:MUSICBIO (Wikipedia:Notability)