Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Worthley


 * 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. A lively debate, but the deletes have the better of it in terms of numbers and sources freely available. I do see this as being a reasonably close call, and those pay site sources could make a difference. I'd be happy to userfy or restore if that is the case. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cathy Worthley

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability per shallow depth of coverage - see WP:BIO.  Ja Ga  talk 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Gay Wired - Jul 3, 2008 By Jacob Anderson-Minshall | Article Date: 7/03/2008 12:00 AM. "For the first 20 years of her professional music career, Cathy Worthley was known as Scottish..." and "Transgender Folk Singer Cathy Worthley To Perform at Transgender…" New England Blade - Jun 4, 2008 "Cathy Worthley doesn’t talk much about her self-exile, that period in her life when she disappeared in order to complete her transition..." although I'm having trouble accessing them online. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * weak delete per nom. orphaned and poorly cited since mid 2008. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Article just needs some formatting tweaks to clean it up and is ripe for expansion. There also appear to be stories here: Trans Nation: Folk Musician Cathy Worthley
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non-trivial coverage from a government organization is enough to establish notability, albeit barely so. Delete. was a press release. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice for creation of a new article; most of this short article is copied from the page cited by Blanchardb, which as the product of a US state agency is presumably copyrighted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyvio of three or four sentences should be fixed, after looking i see only half a sentence that doesn't really rise to copyvio, IMHO. -- Banj e  b oi   04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems a stub worthy of growing with reliable sources available. Nobility has also been asserted. Let the sources lead this one. -- Banj e  b oi   04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep  Two of those links do grant notability, though I'd like to see more incorporated into the article Corpx (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which two? I ended up with one reliable source. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Only one of them (edgeboston) is legit.  Corpx (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete sources were article, broken link, press release, press release, press release. Simply has not been the subject of multiple reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete even if including working as George for twenty years there is nothing of substance from reliable sources.  Lame Name (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of these delete votes addresses the articles noted above that haven't yet been included in the article. Articles in reliable sources about the subject are substantial coverage are they not? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is one reliable source - that is not "substantial". --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources with substantial coverage that haven't yet been included in the article... why haven't they? Arguing here is a less effective way to save an article than simply ignoring this discussion and improving the article. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep GTBacchus has a point, but AfD discussions always take away time that could also be used to improve the article. The fact more sources exist so article need improvement not deletion (though it helps explain nomination in first place). --Milowent (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact more sources exist - they do? where? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Milowent, AFD discussions only take as much time as you want them to. Nobody is making you defend the article here, and adding sources will save it faster than paying any attention at all to this page. If it gets deleted out from under you, ask me, and I will absolutely get you a copy of what was deleted. The idea that you have to participate here before working on the article, or in order to work on the article, makes no sense. If you use article improvement time to post here, that's your own bad decision. Again, if it's deleted, I'll get you the deleted content. Just stop arguing and start sourcing. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus invited me to comment on a larger discussion he started based on my comment, and others, about "defending" articles from deletion, which I have commented on here. As I note there, it probably is easier to plop down cites in an AfD than actually improve the article, though the latter is the far preferred behavior we want to encourage.--Milowent (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I added some citation to the article. One is a duplicate from a different source (if anyone knows how to format that, since links do go dead adn redundancy is good). There also appear to be several about George Worthley and Carol Clark. The George looks to be Cathy, but unfortunately the articles aren't available for free. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 of the 5 are trivial mentions in event listing. The article still fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. All I see here is a lot of "sources must be out there sometime" and the usual people from the article canvass squad playing their favourite tune of "I didn't hear that" when you ask them where those sources are. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see:

1) Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable - two articles - one of which is about them being a transexual.

2) Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart - no.

3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country - no.

4) Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. - no.

5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). - no.

6) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. - No.

7) Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. - no.

8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. - no

9) Has won or placed in a major music competition. - no.

10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) - no.

11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. - no.

12) Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. - no

So how are any of those keep votes based on the article or the sources? She's a pub singer - nothing wrong with that, I've been a pub singer but it's a trivial thing and not the basis of an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please dial it down, AfD, and Wikipedia isn't a battlefield, we get your point and it remains your opinion. I too see ten pay articles that do suggest more information on "George Worthley" do exist. This may not meet music bio but likely edges over a GNG measure. -- Banj e  b oi   17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cameron Scott. Clubmarx (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consider this; if "George Worthley" had been well-known when xe went in for the change, more press would have been generated. If "Cathy Worthley" was a noteworthy musician, being a transsexual would surely boost coverage. Instead we have nothing to suggest notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:21, 10 September 2009 (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.