Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barratt Waugh


 * 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. Well intentioned, but does not appear to meet article inclusion guidelines at this time.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barratt Waugh

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy. British singer, questionable notability but there is some claim there so not really a speedy candidate. I have no opinion. Pascal.Tesson 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I respectfully disagree with the previous user's comment about the article subject's "questionable notability." While perhaps not as well known as some other artists in the pop/rock genre, it is my opinion that Mr. Waugh's prior affiliation with a major record label, as well as his continued work in songwriting and vocal performance, qualifies him as sufficiently notable to warrant at least a "stub" entry. Such an entry would allow other users familiar with his work to expand the article to include listings of the artist's past and present compact disc recordings, concerts, and other pertinent data. PrometheusA1 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The question here is: is there sufficient coverage of Mr. Waugh's career in reliable third-party sources to warrant an article? Pascal.Tesson 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response I still think the article should be kept, but clearly I've been outvoted. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have to say that I'm really disappointed. With articles/associated references ranging from Slinger to Gareth (Sojourn) to Scott_Savol, I think this one is on par. To those who want "objective evidence," take a look at the articles linked above (the first and second are examples of random, apparently non-notable things that have articles), and the third also cites a personal Web sites as the primary reference. There's clearly a large grey area between non-notable and notable, and I'm frankly disappointed that I took the time to contribute in the first place since others apparently think it's pointless. PrometheusA1 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not a speedy but a suitable candidate for deletion based on not being notable enough, SqueakBox 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Using his own website as the basis for the article is a definite no-no, I'm afraid. If he is notable, then magazines, newspapers, feature writers, will have written profiles about him. I find a few references to him in Google Archive, of which a couple may be about him rather than just mention him in passing. Unfortunately, these are all subscription sites. There is a review(?) of a performance as a support act for Lulu on the BBC website. (scroll down). He apparently had a charted 'hit' on the UK Singles Top 75 in 2003 ('Skip A Beat' reached no. 56 for one week in week 30/2003), which - perhaps - just meets WP:BIO Criteria for musicians... 2.? My feeling is that here's a guy who has not quite yet hit the big time. Maybe he will and that will be the time to write an article about him. --Malcolmxl5 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete for largely unknown and non-notable singer/singwriter. This is a tougher call than I originally thought, but I don't see how we can justify this article. Any article that only cites a myspace.com personal homepage should set the alarm bells ringing right away per "blatant advertising" (Speedy Deletion policy, G11) and "No assertion of importance/significance" (Speedy deletion policy, A7). A Lexis-Nexis search did not produce "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per notability policy. In fact, in two of the three articles that briefly mentions Waugh, X-Factor's judge Simon Cowell calls Waugh's singing "distinctly average." Does a "distinctly average" subject with no other publicly verifiable dissenting opinions deserve its own encyclopedia article? Probably not. We need more objective evidence. Hence, weak delete. Sorry, J Readings 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, note that AFD is not a !vote, it's a discussion. WP:MUSIC aims to cut down on the grey area of notability as much as possible. In addition, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument for keeping an article. If you feel other articles don't meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC, feel free to nominate them for deletion. shoy  16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.