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.
Does not meet
WP:MUSIC,
WP:BIO, or
WP:GNG. Note that I have nominated her album,
TORRES (Album). Watch that AFD, if it closes as "MERGE TO ARTIST" and this closes as "DELETE" there will be a problem. Similar notice placed on that AFD.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep I see at least a few decent sources, including a review from Pitchfork Media. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep This musician meets at least 3 of the criteria from
WP:MUSIC, several of the general criteria from
WP:BIO, and ALL of the criteria from the "general notability guideline" on
WP:GNG, I.E. the musician has been the subject multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. For examples of these reliable sources, please see the reference list on the page in question.
Stomachworm88 (
talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
The Deli - okay, local news coverage not a particularly great source to pass
WP:GNG or
WP:MUSBIO but does count
abubaker - a source defined but not used
In your speakers - what makes this a reliable source?
Listen Before You Buy - this looks self-published and they'll put up just about any band, notable or otherwise
2 x Nashville Scene - okay
songkick.com - what makes this a reliable source?
2 x Pitchfork reviews - okay
Beats Per Minute, Drowned in Sound, Pretty Much Amazing - what makes these reliable sources?
Album of the year - a list of user reviews. Self published source
Adding that lot up, by my standards, gives you coverage in 5 reliable sources. That's just about enough to tip it into notability, particularly since the odds are that more sources will appear in time (but see
WP:TOOSOON and
WP:CRYSTAL). Despite what Stomachworm88 claimed above, the article meets none of the "free pass" criteria in
WP:MUSBIO, since her album was self-published and has not charted, and her "tours" are not notable enough to be written about in
Rolling Stone. On a side note, "Scott decidedly crafted the distinct sound of her debut album" is very much
WP:POV, so I've copyedited the article to tone things down a bit.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 08:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment by nominator: It is my intent to revisit Ritchie333's work above (I did something similar for the album, see
Talk:TORRES (Album). Who knows, I may wind up withdrawing this or, if I am not convinced, re-asserting that the person fails
WP:Notability. It's obvious already that I didn't do
my homework before nominating this, and for that I apologize.
Trouts and wet noodles accepted.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs) 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)reply
according to
WP:NMUSIC, a musician must meet at least one of the guidelines listed there in order for her to be considered notable. this musician meets at least two of them, IE #1 and #4. so slim yes, but passing yes. and at least two of the references,
pitchfork media and
drowned in sound are listed as reliable in
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. we must keepStomachworm88 (
talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Exactly how does this reach criteria #4? That's (imho) for people like
Daryl Stuermer, who, while never appearing as an official member of
Genesis and not playing on their albums, achieved notability by being part of the regular touring line-up.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)reply
ok maybe this musician does not meet criterion #4, but she still does definitely meet criterion #1, which is the most important criterion. thus this article is not a legitimate candidate for deletion and we must keep.
Stomachworm88 (
talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (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.
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.
Does not meet
WP:MUSIC,
WP:BIO, or
WP:GNG. Note that I have nominated her album,
TORRES (Album). Watch that AFD, if it closes as "MERGE TO ARTIST" and this closes as "DELETE" there will be a problem. Similar notice placed on that AFD.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep I see at least a few decent sources, including a review from Pitchfork Media. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep This musician meets at least 3 of the criteria from
WP:MUSIC, several of the general criteria from
WP:BIO, and ALL of the criteria from the "general notability guideline" on
WP:GNG, I.E. the musician has been the subject multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. For examples of these reliable sources, please see the reference list on the page in question.
Stomachworm88 (
talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
The Deli - okay, local news coverage not a particularly great source to pass
WP:GNG or
WP:MUSBIO but does count
abubaker - a source defined but not used
In your speakers - what makes this a reliable source?
Listen Before You Buy - this looks self-published and they'll put up just about any band, notable or otherwise
2 x Nashville Scene - okay
songkick.com - what makes this a reliable source?
2 x Pitchfork reviews - okay
Beats Per Minute, Drowned in Sound, Pretty Much Amazing - what makes these reliable sources?
Album of the year - a list of user reviews. Self published source
Adding that lot up, by my standards, gives you coverage in 5 reliable sources. That's just about enough to tip it into notability, particularly since the odds are that more sources will appear in time (but see
WP:TOOSOON and
WP:CRYSTAL). Despite what Stomachworm88 claimed above, the article meets none of the "free pass" criteria in
WP:MUSBIO, since her album was self-published and has not charted, and her "tours" are not notable enough to be written about in
Rolling Stone. On a side note, "Scott decidedly crafted the distinct sound of her debut album" is very much
WP:POV, so I've copyedited the article to tone things down a bit.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 08:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment by nominator: It is my intent to revisit Ritchie333's work above (I did something similar for the album, see
Talk:TORRES (Album). Who knows, I may wind up withdrawing this or, if I am not convinced, re-asserting that the person fails
WP:Notability. It's obvious already that I didn't do
my homework before nominating this, and for that I apologize.
Trouts and wet noodles accepted.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs) 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)reply
according to
WP:NMUSIC, a musician must meet at least one of the guidelines listed there in order for her to be considered notable. this musician meets at least two of them, IE #1 and #4. so slim yes, but passing yes. and at least two of the references,
pitchfork media and
drowned in sound are listed as reliable in
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. we must keepStomachworm88 (
talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Exactly how does this reach criteria #4? That's (imho) for people like
Daryl Stuermer, who, while never appearing as an official member of
Genesis and not playing on their albums, achieved notability by being part of the regular touring line-up.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)reply
ok maybe this musician does not meet criterion #4, but she still does definitely meet criterion #1, which is the most important criterion. thus this article is not a legitimate candidate for deletion and we must keep.
Stomachworm88 (
talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (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.