Draft talk:Seabrun “Candy” Hunter Jr.#rfc 5811001

Seeking community input: This draft was previously declined under WP:GNG/MUSICBIO. Since then, we've added:

• Music credits from BMI & Discogs
• Album listing via 45worlds.com
• Phil Silverman’s 1975 review (AllMusic/Amazon)
• Affidavit by bandmate Alvin Taylor
• Getty Images + *Now Dig This* feature (May 2025)
• Listing in Ultimate Pop Culture Wiki

All sources are inline-cited, COI disclosed, and web archives created. Requesting neutral review under WP:GNG/MUSICBIO.

Ty Bat Zan (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Has there been previous discussion of this issue per WP:RFCBEFORE? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::In addition, this doesn't appear to be a neutral RFC at all. Please see WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

::After doing some digging I found the only discussion of this was a three comment discussion (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Seeking_Guidance_on_Drafting_a_Wikipedia_Article_for_Seabrun_“Candy”_Hunter_Jr.) at the teahouse. This is by no means an extensive discussion needed for an RFC.

::My resolution is that this RFC should be speedily closed. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please don't hold RfCs for drafts; any perceived issues here are clearly way short of deadlock. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{sbb}} That said, I would also observe that:

::# most of the sources cited above have in fact not been added to the draft, so there is no way to determine (for those contributing via the normal AfC process or through this RfC) how they would be used in context to establish either verification of particular factors or establishment of WP:NOTABILITY for the article itself;

::# the same sources are not presented in full and typical reference format, so we can even establish their authenticity,

::# from what information we do have for them, it seems extremely dubious that all (or even any) would qualify as WP:RS in these circumstances; and

::# Even if some were RS, it is doubtful they would meet the WP:GNG or relevant SNG thresholds.

::In short, OP, you have a long way to go here, and there may not be a viable article for this particular encyclopedia if these are best sources you have. But that determination can't be made with confidence without further adjustments to how you are presenting your sources. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Ty Bat Zan Out of the three references in the article, only the upcoming July 2025 article would work towards WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Out of the sources you mentioned here, only the Phil Silverman review could work towards GNG, if Phil Silverman is a published author in the music industry, as I have not heard of him before and googling his name doesn't help since there are several of them.

:I would suggest you wait until the feature article is published, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, and find another (third) reputable source. WP:MUSICBIO lays out what is considered a reputable source for music artists. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Speedy close {{sbb}} - there's an established process for this over on WP:AFC, this seems to be a specific disagreement between the filer and AfC reviewers, not a consensus related dispute. As others have pointed out, the listed sources have not been added. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm noting for the record here that it seems that, following an ANI discussion, the OP was indeffed for a combination of WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, WP:LLM, WP:CIR, and WP:STICK concerns. Someone seems to have already removed the rfc tag during the foregoing discussion, but on the off chance there is an attempt to revive this draft down the line (and/or there is disruption associated with it), the procedural history may be useful. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Snow Rise}} Yes, as noted at the ANI, I {{diff|Draft talk:Seabrun “Candy” Hunter Jr.|prev|1296696486|removed it}}, because an RfC at that stage was clearly miles too premature. As I have pointed out elsewhere, RfC is not a first step to discussion, it is an instrument of last resort that is used when all regular methods have failed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Redrose64}}: Well, let me be clear that I am not criticizing your removal of the tag here: I think there are many, many procedural and contextual reasons why this was not a fruitful use of the process and the discussion was absolutely certain to end precisely as it did. {{pb}} However, I have to say, because I see it more and more from some respondents to RfC, and I think (no personal offense intended) that is a little problematic: I don't agree with the assessment that RfC can't or shouldn't be attempted early in the DR process, let alone that it is meant to be anything like "an instrument of last resort that is used when all regular methods have failed." Let me preface that RfC is easily the process that (at least as far as project space/back-end contributions go) that I have most contributed to in my time with the project: I'd estimate I have participated in 1,200-1,400 of them over the last 14 years or so--and 95%+ as an FRS respondent. And it's only in the last couple of years that I've seen these ultra-high threshold arguments being consistently made left and right, but it's rapidly become really common to see people attempt to apply super rigorous standards for when an RfC can or cannot take place. {{pb}} And again, I'm sorry, absolutely nothing personal here, but since its come up organically I feel inclined to say it: I don't think it's a great shoft in the procedural culture. RfC's far form being a "last resort" are really cheap in terms of volunteer commitment, relative to the amount of time they can save the community by heading off snowballing conflicts or disputes that would have gotten solved earlier and easier with just a little third party involvement. {{pb}} Now, most people respond through FRS, so yes, you don't want those notices being monopolized too much when there are procedural, technical, or CIR reasons it isn't going to be helpful (as in this case as a truly paradigmatic example). Which is of course one of the reasons we have WP:RFCBEFORE. But on the other hand, I think whenever any party to a dispute that is proving intractable has genuine reason to believe there is not a meeting of the mind, that has become a perfectly reasonable point at which to start considering an RfC. It gets quick, previously un-involved additional perspectives into the mix, short-circuits most edit warring and needless personalization, and on average saves the involved editors and the broader community time. I think we should be encouraging people to make liberal use of the process, not throwing up a strict barrier to entry or quasi-WP:BURO set of hurdles. Because the cost-benefit ratio is better than just about any other regular process on the project, in my experience. {{pb}} But again, this was obviously the right situation to make a procedural with an SPA who just was not understanding what they were doing. But there's a wide gap between that and "method of last recourse." And I believe that both policy and common sense argue for a more open than closed approach to seeking RfC as a reasonable, small-stakes, and incredibly helpful dispute resolution process. It's, more than any one thing, the lubricant that greases the skids on this project and its more likely to be attempted later than it should have been, rather than sooner. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)