Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tucker (singer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. I just want to comment on, It's also rather a struggle to find more sources, given the common name that he has. That's not a valid argument. We're here to produce a quality product, and sometimes that takes work. Lowering our standards because something is hard just doesn't fly. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Tucker (singer)[edit]

David Tucker (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the interpretation of "...multiple, non-trivial..." in point 1. It's true that "multiple" can mean two. But in the context of the rest of MUSICBIO, which sets a reasonably high bar, I wouldn't say that one article in his local small-town newspaper and story on his local TV affiliate station really covers it. If that were the only thing he was failing on, I would let it slide, if for example he was in an unusual niche genre. But he currently fails all the rest of the 12 points listed there. OnionRing (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to get pointy about this but WP:MUSICBIO only requires, "at least one of the following criteria" be met. The one criteria that is met here (#1) is basically WP:GNG so I don't see a strong case for rolling past that. I haven't seen anyone at AfD successfully argue that multiple to means more than two. Are you arguing that the TV station and local paper are not reliable sources or do you just have a feeling that this subject should not be considered notable despite technically meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO requirements? ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable sources. But I believe that the "at least" one requirement is intended to cover musicians who have abundant coverage in several reliable sources, not just the minimum of "multiple", i.e. two local sources. So a new singer-songwriter who's suddenly shot to fame, getting press reviews all over the place, etc. shouldn't also be expected to also have awards, charting, rotation, etc. to be considered notable. That's not what we've got here, however. OnionRing (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you concede that WP:GNG is met here but appear to be asserting that WP:MUSICBIO holds these subjects to a higher standard. I take, "At least one" to mean, "One or more" and I don't see any indication that there's more to it than that. My reading is that WP:MUSICBIO is significantly more permissive than WP:GNG; A musician with no coverage is considered notable if they have a charting single or placed in a major competition, for instance.
No, I'm not conceding that WP:GNG is met here. Neither WP:GNG, nor the apparent intention of WP:MUSICBIO. If you want to treat it as a written rule to be abided by to the letter, then there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind. OnionRing (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to address that with the editor on his talk page, but I think you've hit it right on the head. "Barely meeting one of 12" isn't the spirit of the guideline; as a matter of fact, this is exactly the sort of article the guideline is designed to prevent. I'd add that WP:NOTNEWS would also apply. In the end we have an unsigned, self-releasing indie artist. There's a million of those out there, and they're not article-worthy. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are lots of unsigned self-published artists and most are not notable. Only a small number of these have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and these should be included. To say otherwise is to disregard WP:GNG. The only case I'm aware of where WP:GNG is not enough to establish notability is WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately this doesn't meet WP:GNG. First, the sources are local and we do not use it for GNG purposes. Secondly, I'm worried about the quality of sources. This is essentially a listing for a show Tucker will perform Kentucky Bred for the first time before an audience Saturday, May 14, at the historic Russell Theater in Maysville. People can get tickets for the show on Tucker's website. CLICK HERE for the website. with a few added in quotes by his manager and parents and himself. This is not what I call a significant secondary coverage. In addition, the tone of the article makes me doubt if this has gone through an editorial review. The other source is a local source as well although the tone is much better and this has a bit more content. However, both sources essentially confirm it is WP:TOOSOON. Had there been one more national source, I would have considered. But at this time, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a non-local requirement attached to WP:GNG. Maybe you're thinking of WP:AUD which only applies to organizations. ~Kvng (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in local news only is insufficient to meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG says nothing about the geographic location of sources. North America1000 10:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not explicitly, but it does require the "outside world" to take notice, which means one needs to get wider coverage than just the local town paper. MSJapan (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So now we want to exclude topics of local interest from the encyclopedia? I don't think so. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we want to exclude local topics that fail WP:NOTNEWS and meet none of the other notability guidelines. Don't make nonsense blanket statements. MSJapan (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the disagreement between editors on whether the subject meets a very clearly cited and established policy, I will relist this so as to welcome the contributions of additional neutral parties. KaisaL (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep yes, the coverage is somewhat local in nature, but on the balance I have to believe that this just meets GNG. Two = multiple, after all. It's also rather a struggle to find more sources, given the common name that he has. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon. This is someone who has performed in a few local clubs, and got written up in the home-town paper for ... having not yet made it but who may have gotten a break thanks to being a friend of the grandson of George Clooney. The article is 3 (count them) sentences. It's not enough for notability. I also seriously hope that we don't start adding an article everyone who has ever had a local news story written about them. That would include nearly everyone living in a small town in the US. Those papers are reliable sources, but "Reliable source" means reliable for facts, not necessarily proof of notability. LaMona (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add some more about notability. Notability states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Later it says: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Insisting that two sources guarantees GNG is simply wrong. Nothing guarantees GNG. Also, as MSJapan mentions, notability is not a short-term thing. Again, quoting from WP:N : "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". It also requires that sources be independent of the subject. I would argue that a small-town paper is not as dependent as, say, a press release, but it isn't as independent as a national source, and that a small-town paper is not an indicator of the "outside world". LaMona (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability. Can always create a new page for him once (if?) he later becomes notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above arguments. This appears to be textbook sort of 'too soon' case. The sourcing isn't that great, and what's actually been reported is essentially 'he's good but hasn't gotten notoriety yet'. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it happens, I share some of the concerns about excluding "local" sources prima facie. If a subject were covered in several "local" (which usually just means smaller--The New York Times associates itself with a location, too!) outlets from different places, that would mean something to me about the subject's notability both in the colloquially sense, and, more importantly, for WP:WHYN: if this musician had been covered in smaller papers in, say, Illinois, Texas, Wyoming and Kentucky, then I think we could start to see we have the necessary "multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article." But I don't think two sources from, essentially, the subject's hometown suffices to offer a balance of perspectives. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Tucker_(singer)&oldid=1089515928"