Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Warburton


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  12:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Geoff Warburton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Previously deleted by PROD in which I said:"Reliable coverage limited to a bunch of articles discussing his Big Machine signing, all of which restate each other so there's no point in adding any of it. That means the article will not be expanding beyond its current state any time soon, and as is this is a blatant WP:NOTDATABASE vio." Article has since been restored and there is one more source than before, but it appears to me that my point still stands. The coverage here still does not support independent notability. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That one new source being this interview with Music Business Worldwide. Doesn't seem like the hottest source for notability to me. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is based far, far too heavily on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, while the media sourcing consists mainly of glancing namechecks of his existence in sources whose primary subject is someone or something else. What's left for sourcing about him is one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person in a publication that would probably not meet reliable source requirements anyway, and one Billboard article that's technically fine but not all by itself enough if it's the only substantive source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Despite the admirable, last-minute efforts by a single-purpose account, we still do not have enough to categorize the text's subject as Wikipedia-notable. Which, of course, is no reflection whatsoever on their musical talent and artistic value. We have routine announcements in the field press, e.g. here, here, or here; one Rolling Stone 404 link; listings in All Music such as this; the not-exactly-earth-shaking report about a contract extension; and so on. Truly very little in terms of support. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2023 (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.