Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Masters


 * 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.  Go  Phightins  !  20:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Matt Masters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest potential notability claims here (songs being used in film or television soundtracks, touring) are either badly sourced or completely unsourced, while the more reliable sources are almost all coverage within his own hometown local media market in local-interest contexts (such as unsuccessfully running for political office, serving as the city's "busker liaison consultant", and winning a municipal arts award that doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #8) which aren't notability makers. And even the two extralocal Toronto Star hits consist of one glancing namecheck of his existence within an event calendar, and one article covering him solely in the context of having had a campaign video briefly go a bit viral on the internet -- which would just make him a WP:BLP1E at best, not a person who would pass the ten year test for enduring significance on that basis per se. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of coverage beyond his hometown. Also likely conflict of interest, as the subject's real-life surname is Burgener and the article was created by an editor named "Burgtheburg". Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: CBC is national, not local; other CBC coverage includes this (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/matt-masters-curbside-concerts-1.5546746) which is marginal and this interview (https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/927002179668) which is primary. Adds up to not a lot but not nothing. I did, however, also find this review (https://exclaim.ca/music/article/matt_masters-centennial_swell) in Exclaim!, another national Canadian music publication, and the most substantial of the lot in this feature (https://www.nodepression.com/matt-masters-his-new-album-and-the-spaghetti-western-festival/) in No Depression, a general (i.e. not Canadian only) and well-respected country music print publication. Was leaning weak keep until I found that. The election stuff is weird, not sure what to make of it, probably nothing. Adding these now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that the CBC is a national entity does not mean that every single thing it publishes is automatically "national" coverage — the CBC most certainly does have local news bureaux in the cities that publish local-interest content independently of the national news division. If you see the name of an individual Canadian city above the headline or in the URL, such as the "Calgary" that's present both in the URL of that CBC hit and in grey text just above its headline, then that means it's local interest coverage from the CBC's local bureau in Calgary and not notability-clinching national coverage. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hence my summation of that source as "marginal." I ended up not using it, but did find several other sources, which are now in the article. Now I would say it meets WP:MUSIC criteria 1 (multiple non-trivial published works independent of the musician; note there is no exception for regional coverage, although national coverage is now also in the article), arguably 7, 10 (it met 10 before), and 12 (one of the sources added was a national CBC segment). Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's well reasoned argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and I looked at the discussed CBC sources, and they're of exceptional triviality — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2021 (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.