Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Lawrence


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Lawrence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable musician; fails WP:MUSICBIO —Waldhorn (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, Needs more sources but OA should suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Note that an OAM, the lowest level of the Order of Australia, is not generally considered sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Who says? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
 * It's hardly a significant honour. It's just a medal. Not even a true grade of the order. Over 19,000 have been awarded in the forty years of its existence. It is outranked by all Australian gallantry medals, most of which are not considered to be enough for automatic notability. If recipients are to be considered inherently notable, then by extension surely all recipients of gallantry awards would be considered inherently notable? They're not. That's not to say that a recipient can't be notable, of course, or that the OAM may not be considered a contributory factor to their notability, but it's not anywhere near enough on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Focusing on notability as a musician, a medal doesn't fall under the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Honors have been been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), but haven't passed. —Waldhorn (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Although, of course, if it was a more significant honour it would fall under the purview of WP:ANYBIO, which trumps WP:MUSICBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. —Waldhorn (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- this listing of his recordings on the web site of Move Records seems more than enough to establish notability and is probably a suitable source to use if the article is expanded. --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Under WP:MUSICBIO #5, as an independent label, it need to have a "history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." While it was started in 1969, its roster of performers is made up of what appears to be predominantly non-notable musicians and non-notable ensembles. —Waldhorn (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you see the circularity in that, ? --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the argument appears to flow on paper for me. Point out the error, if you like. Thanks. —Waldhorn (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The circularity is that musicians are excluded from "notability" because they are listed by a label that does not confer "notability" because it doesn't list enough people who are "notable". --Stfg (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, true, that's a potential flaw in #5—and would be a barrier especially if that were the only MUSICBIO criteria for notability. It's not uncommon, though, for artists to arrive at a label with established notability from other their musical activities. And, of course, notability under one of the other 11 points would suffice to meet MUSICBIO. —Waldhorn (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whilst I'm not a big fan of classical music or organs, just from a brief internet search there appears to be plenty of independent verifiable references to Douglas Lawrence, which easily establishes his notability. I would also strongly disagree that an OAM is "hardly a significant honour", a point that even the Australian Government wouldn't support. I do accept that not all recipients are inherently notable but I would not dismiss the award out of hand, simply for that reason.Dan arndt (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not dismissing it out of hand. I am merely saying that it is not sufficient to confer automatic notability as one contributor suggested. If that were the case then we would keep articles on anyone who had received an honour of any level. Whereas in fact we have deleted articles on many recipients of lesser honours such as this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some articles with some good coverage of him
 * and some reviews.
 * That's only this century, the majority of his career is before then, seems likely there will be more from earlier years. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2014 (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.
 * and some reviews.
 * That's only this century, the majority of his career is before then, seems likely there will be more from earlier years. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2014 (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.
 * That's only this century, the majority of his career is before then, seems likely there will be more from earlier years. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2014 (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.
 * 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.