Talk:Fred Small (singer-songwriter)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Everything Possible
[edit]I was looking for the chords to Everything Possible - anyone have them or know them - or if Mr Small reads this anychance you could send me them. marcinbc@hotmail.com
- Not sure how long ago this comment was added - please sign and date comments - but Fred Small's songs now show up on most of the standard lyric sites. Googling "everything possible chords", the top hit I get is currently this: http://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/f/fred_small/everything_possible_crd.htm - I just tried it and the chords seem reasonably accurate to the song, though one could quibble with a few. You could also check the second Fred Small songbook: http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Worth-Keeping-Songs-Small/dp/0938756451 --Blogjack (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Add new song * "Three Five 0" anthem cited from http://www.350.org/ http://www.350.org/350-songs-planet
[edit]Add new song * "Three Five 0" anthem cited from [1] http://www.350.org/350-songs-planet 99.184.230.116 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- not a reliable source nor a notable song. If you want to add it, please add all of his songs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Nominating for Speedy Deletion
[edit]WP:CSD
As per criterion A7: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organisations, web content). The article functions as an about-me" biography and doesn't so much as make an attempt to establish its subject's importance or notability. Conspicuously, the single reference provided and the entirety of the "External Links" section are, in fact, precisely "about-me"-style biographies or personal, promotional web sites; the text of the article provides no further reasoning as to why its subject should have a Wikipedia entry.70.114.192.98 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion A7 has a much lower threshold than "notability", and all that is needed to avoid it is a *claim* of importance - not any actual evidence of it. The claim of a discography of 7 albums is sufficient, even if it is not sourced. Please take it to WP:AfD if you think notability has not been established. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you'll re-read my comment, you'll note that I didn't actually appeal to lack of notability as a criterion for my speedy deletion. Instead, I offered the article's failure to even attempt to establish its subject's importance as my reasoning, which is basically the accepted published criterion in so many words. I feel strongly that you have made an error and are, in fact, invoking Wikipedia policy that does not exist to arrive at your decision. Your claim, viz, that listing a non-commercial, non-professional, and otherwise culturally insignificant recording output is equivalent to a claim of significance, does not appear in any reading of the policy I have researched...which I have done to at least a cursory extent ;)! A7 allows significance for associations with notable bands or musicians, contracts with notable labels, airplay on the radio, &c...and I take these from a guideline you yourself have linked on your talk page! :) It does not appear anywhere that self-financed recording of a discography (and the article certainly makes no attempt to cast the discography as a professional or commercial recording endeavour) has ever been considered a claim of threshold importance. If you can provide an example of a discussion or published guideline that says otherwise, I will gladly concede the point, but as of now, I invite you to recall your removal of the speedy deletion tag: I maintain the the article makes no attempt to establish the importance or significance of its subject whatsoever. It simply provides a short "about-me" biography of its subject, to which is appended a list of recorded output that is not apparently associated or affiliated with any notable bands or musicians or record labels. Should you fail to reconsider, I feel that you are in danger of setting a poor precedent by which any hobbyist musician with enough pocket change to record his own music can make a claim to Wikipedia-article-level significance by recording a few songs in his basement and listing the compilation titles on Wikipedia. I understand the AfD policy (though not the process), and I will certainly not re-tag the article for speedy deletion, but I also don't care enough to monitor the AfD process on an article that I feel very clearly violates CSD A7. As a Wikipedia editor, surely you are as sensitive to useless information as you are bad information on the pages of the increasingly respectable Wikipedia; I ask you to carefully reconsider your action in light of the fact that the the article truly makes no attempt to establish its subject's importance beyond a listing of several self-published and unimportant/insignificant musical efforts. Having a productive hobby with tangible output is not a claim of Wikipedia-level significance, is it?70.114.192.98 (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- The article does not say "a non-commercial, non-professional, and otherwise culturally insignificant recording output" - you can only arrive at that analysis after doing a bit of research, and speedy deletion is only for blatantly obvious cases that need no such research. And yes, anyone can make a *claim* of importance and beat A7, because that's what the A7 rules say. Re "It simply provides a short "about-me" biography of its subject, to which is appended a list of recorded output that is not apparently associated or affiliated with any notable bands or musicians or record labels" (my emphasis), I have already explained that speedy deletion is not about notability. The A7 request has been declined, and I'm not going to argue about it any further, so nominate the article at AfD if you want. (And if you're not sufficiently familiar with the AfD process, I'll be happy to nominate it for you - just ask). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you'll re-read my comment, you'll note that I didn't actually appeal to lack of notability as a criterion for my speedy deletion. Instead, I offered the article's failure to even attempt to establish its subject's importance as my reasoning, which is basically the accepted published criterion in so many words. I feel strongly that you have made an error and are, in fact, invoking Wikipedia policy that does not exist to arrive at your decision. Your claim, viz, that listing a non-commercial, non-professional, and otherwise culturally insignificant recording output is equivalent to a claim of significance, does not appear in any reading of the policy I have researched...which I have done to at least a cursory extent ;)! A7 allows significance for associations with notable bands or musicians, contracts with notable labels, airplay on the radio, &c...and I take these from a guideline you yourself have linked on your talk page! :) It does not appear anywhere that self-financed recording of a discography (and the article certainly makes no attempt to cast the discography as a professional or commercial recording endeavour) has ever been considered a claim of threshold importance. If you can provide an example of a discussion or published guideline that says otherwise, I will gladly concede the point, but as of now, I invite you to recall your removal of the speedy deletion tag: I maintain the the article makes no attempt to establish the importance or significance of its subject whatsoever. It simply provides a short "about-me" biography of its subject, to which is appended a list of recorded output that is not apparently associated or affiliated with any notable bands or musicians or record labels. Should you fail to reconsider, I feel that you are in danger of setting a poor precedent by which any hobbyist musician with enough pocket change to record his own music can make a claim to Wikipedia-article-level significance by recording a few songs in his basement and listing the compilation titles on Wikipedia. I understand the AfD policy (though not the process), and I will certainly not re-tag the article for speedy deletion, but I also don't care enough to monitor the AfD process on an article that I feel very clearly violates CSD A7. As a Wikipedia editor, surely you are as sensitive to useless information as you are bad information on the pages of the increasingly respectable Wikipedia; I ask you to carefully reconsider your action in light of the fact that the the article truly makes no attempt to establish its subject's importance beyond a listing of several self-published and unimportant/insignificant musical efforts. Having a productive hobby with tangible output is not a claim of Wikipedia-level significance, is it?70.114.192.98 (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)