Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwyn Ashton

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 keep. Nice improvement, and consensus indicates that new sources are enough to warrant a keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn Ashton[edit]

No assertion of notability. His discography is WP:NN... if he is a musician (I can't actually tell) then he fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND. In general, article's subject seems very WP:NN. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he has an All Music Guide entry, I couldn't find anything to show that his songs or albums have charted. No prejudice to recreation if someone can give better sources. Spellcast (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's published three albums with Riverside_Records, which IMHO qualifies for "more important indie label" as of Wikipedia:MUSIC, criterion 5. I'll try to track down the "Guitar Parts Magazine" competition thing, too. Hey, he's not Clapton or Moore, but he's doing alright... ;-) --Syzygy (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs third party sources if that's true about Riverside Records, friend :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Amazon catalogue count? ;-) Okay, I'll try to hunt it down. --Syzygy (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. [1] I'm beginning to have doubts whether this is the same Riverside label, though? --Syzygy (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those guys don't seem the same... the wiki article says they're a jazz based label whilst the link you've dug up seems to be a for a rocky sort of label. Looks like the label isn't notable... Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 12:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the Guitar Part vote mentioned in the WP article? (I took it off GA's website) It doesn't look like it's a too serious competition, and GA seemingly isn't mentioned anymore at all there. OTOH, the list of band he's played with (also from his website) to me looks fairly impressive.

Like I said, he's certainly not top-notch commercially, but he's a fine player and apparently a well-known figure in the guitarists' world. Check out the press clippings on his site... --Syzygy (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you can't really trust his site, it wouldn't count as a reliable source. Also, the sentence where it talks about him being an opening act for those big names isn't sourced, so I don't know if it's true or not. My first assumption would be: "Being an opening act for a few big artists wouldn't necessarily make you notable" - But I'm open to persuasion :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 10:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be equally honest, I don't have a conviction myself anymore. From what I gather, he makes a living off his music, he tours the world quite a lot, he makes records which sell modestly (about the same ranking on Amazon as Klaatu), apparently has been seen on stage with quite a few important names (provided he doesn't blatantly lie on his commercial webpage...), and seems to have a small fan base. I have no idea what his importance in the R&B scene really is; at least he scores 26,000+ hits at Google, not counting the WP entries. ;-) (Add to this a bit of personal bias, since as an owner of all his CDs I think he's wildly underrated, and I feel a bit parental about the article, too.) So, I'm not sure whether he qualifies as notable? (In a nutshell, I'd like to see the article survive, but I won't throw a tantrum if it gets deleted.) --Syzygy (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source [2]. Clearly notable [3]. JJL (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at this point in time the article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. However, if it was edited to include the references that are mentioned above, then that is a different story. If someone comes across this article and reads it they shouldn't have to go googling to see if the person in question is notable or not. That's what references and citations are for. You guys have obviously found a bunch, lets get them edited in and keep this article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I understand you're saying "Keep, but expand the article from a stub to a decent entry"? --Syzygy (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you could say that too. I do tend to decide based on how the article is presented in the here and now though, not on what it could look like if some one got around to doing something to it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. JJL has provided some good sources. Hazillow (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL, the notability of the subject should now be evident. RFerreira (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources clearly show notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (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.