Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie Burgess


 * 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rosie Burgess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced BLP. Little claim of meeting any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Very little coverage found - these were the best I could come up with:, , the second containing no independent coverage at all. Michig (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn - see below, but as other editors are in favour of deletion it will to run its course. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete it then. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long-running Aussie indie musician, nominator didn't look very hard. Material that easily meets WP:RS on multiple continents was not hard to find if one did even a cursory Google., as well as umpteen biographies from festivals she's played all over the world. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I did look quite hard and discounted many of those as non-reliable sources or containing insufficient coverage to establish notability. There's a couple of articles in local newspapers in that list, a very short SMH review, a student newspaper article (generally not accepted as reliable sources), an article from a free paper from a community publishing company, a brief live review from 'The Music', which may or may not be a reliable source, and several others that are either clearly not independently written, are dubious in terms of being reliable sources, or don't provide much in the way of coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a radio interview with Australia's national broadcaster. There's an interview in from the daily newspaper in one of the largest regional cities in the country. There's a review from the country's most respected broadsheet. There's interviews with notable websites on other continents. Another link is one of the most major radio stations in the country highlighting her album as the "Catch of the Day". There's a couple of good interviews in smaller regional newspapers that are still indisputably WP:RSs. There's another radio interview on a notable station, a couple of reviews from notable music and lesbian websites, and more. Either you're really playing fast and loose with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources or you haven't read the thing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't helpful to throw around insults. When I came across the article it contained no sources and no indication that the subject met any criterion of WP:NMUSIC (and still doesn't). I searched and didn't find enough to establish notability so brought it here. If you found more than I did then great, but some of the links you listed contain little or no coverage of the subject, and some would not be considered reliable sources. The others make this borderline in terms of notability. If consensus here is that this should be kept I'm fine with that, but I don't see it as a clear cut case from these sources. --Michig (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above clearly amounts to detailed coverage in reliable sources; major newspapers, recorded interviews on major radio stations, and an abundance of more minor but still notable coverage. Your claim that this is "borderline" is face-saving because you didn't do your homework and this should be withdrawn. Hell, if you actually believed in this wild interpretation of WP:RS you'd be nominating a good number of your own articles for deletion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply saying 'Keep as above' in more than 20 AfDs in a 27-minute period suggests you are not looking very closely at these articles. Unless you can expand on why you think these article should be kept your !vote is unlikely to be given much weight. --Michig (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Michig and highlighted this on many other AfDs, it is bordering on disruptive. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks a sufficient amount of in-depth coverage from reliable sources. AlanS (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On what basis? I cited seventeen decent sources, which included at least five reasonably detailed interviews from unquestionably reliable sources. Since when do we argue with substantive coverage in major daily newspapers on AfD? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the basis that I had a look at the sources you provided and a number of them are not reliable sources. A number are not so much about "Rosie Burgess" as they are about "The Rosie Burgess Trio". Then there was one that didn't even appear to be about the subject at all (different Rosie Burgess it looks like) and that was one of the few reliable sources .  I agree with Michig's nomination. AlanS (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rosie Burgess Trio" is Rosie Burgess' band. I don't particularly care which title you put the article at because they're completely indistinguishable. The source you dispute is the same Rosie Burgess (Panika being her side-project when she's not with her band, which again is easily confirmed by Google). You are literally arguing with good coverage in the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald, Triple J, and the Newcastle Herald before you getting into anything remotely arguable; and I can easily find at least ten articles in the nominator's own article creations sourced to worse-quality sources than the less significant ones that he is claiming to have an issue with here (and that's excluding the indisputable ones that he's trying to ignore altogether). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that coverage of the band is as valid as coverage directly of Burgess. You mention 'good coverage in the ABC and Sydney Morning Herald' - what I see is an interview from 774 ABC Melbourne, a local radio station in the band's home town rather than national radio coverage, and a review in SMH which is 2 or 3 lines - that couldn't really be called significant coverage but I accept that getting reviewed at all in the SMH helps. If I'm missing something here please let me know, as I would be happy to keep if the coverage is out there, but you seriously need to cut the attitude. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 774 ABC Melbourne is the Victorian state affiliate of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is the most (or close to the most) popular radio station in a city of over four million people. Calling it "a local radio station in the band's home town" (which is actually on the other side of the continent) is misleading as hell. I've provided seventeen sources, the vast majority of which are better quality than those you've relied on for a significant chunk of your own new articles. This includes continual attempts at downplaying reliable sources - the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's main station in the second most populous state in the country becomes "local radio", and a major city's daily newspaper becomes a "local weekly", and you've written a bunch of articles relying on much less than any of this - and you wonder why I start to get irritated. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Constantly mentioning articles that I have written is not the least bit helpful. We are here to discuss this article only. The article states that the Rosie Burgess Trio is a Melbourne band, as does the brief blurb on the ABC page - surely that makes them local to Melbourne? You claimed this was "a radio interview with Australia's national broadcaster", and it seems that this is not national radio, but effectively state-level radio - is that right? Our article on 777 ABC Melbourne describes it as and "ABC Local Radio station", so why make such an issue of me calling it a local radio station? If it has a wide a reach as you suggest then that it gives that one more weight. The Newcastle Herald is a local newspaper (I didn't call it a local weekly. In fact I didn't call anything a 'local weekly' here) according to our article on it, and the Noosa News is a very local newspaper serving a population of around 50,000. The problem I have with some of the other sources is that they either don't appear to satisfy WP:RS (e.g, CherryGrrl, SantaCruz.com, The Daily Iowan - student newspapers are often not considered suitable), don't contain significant coverage (SMH, "Catch of the day", The Age), or are doubtful whether they contain independent coverage (the Triple J unearthed bio, St Kilda Festival bio). Having dug deeper on some of the others it seems that The Music would probably pass WP:RS as would GNN (although that one contains little independent coverage), so with the Herald one and the fact that the SMH took notice of the band at all I'm going to say that this has just enough to be kept, so am withdrawing my nomination and going with a weak keep. It's now down to whether other editors agree. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient albums released, international tours, media and other RS on artist to demonstrate notability at wp:musbio.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Below is a selection of the coverage I found. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * cd reviews
 * article with coverage
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * article with coverage
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, sources found by User:The Drover& are not all suitable, but the stuff that appears in legitimate newspapers plus the coverage on Triple J (a national radio network) push her past the GNG quite handily. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:40, 21 August 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.