Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Welsh Isbell


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Scott Welsh Isbell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just not seeing any significant independent coverage, or anything that would help this subject meet a specific notability guideline. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am not exactly sure what you mean by significant independent coverage. But by notability, are you saying the article does not refer to a notable person? Because I think it does. Also, as this is my first Wikipedia article, I would have been mindful of choosing a username. I created this account for the purpose of this article. Hence, the username. I am not Scott Isbell.Swisbell (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, notability is the Wikipedia concept of who we should cover with an encyclopedia article and who we shouldn't. One of the neat things is that notability isn't just left up to opinion; we have some guidelines that can help to make that call. The general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is the easiest guideline to keep in mind, but there are also some specific guidelines for various types of people. WP:NMUSIC seems to apply in this case, but I can't determine how this subject would meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The reliable sources aren't there, nor do Google hits help. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:0:ABE6:78F9:225E:C72:122C (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, the sources don't show notability per our guidelines at WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a heads up that I removed a lot of the article content because it was copied verbatim from the subject's website. I also removed a reference from The Atlantic because it discussed the ISIS attacks and made no reference to the subject. That material, of course, can be viewed by accessing the article's history. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Akinlosotu (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)According to guidelines at WP:MUSIC, I believe subject satisfies notability with reference to points 1 and 5 under criterion for musicians and ensembles. Also, I believe the current state of the article is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. It is on this note that I plead for us to Keep article and work on it until it is worthy. I look forward to your response.Akinlosotu (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: criterion 1, I'm not sure that anything here really represents significant coverage. IMDB usually doesn't meet that standard, and neither would any of the content generated by Isbell or his associates (Talented Kids Depot, Niji Magazine, the Isbell website). Ralan Enterprises also seems to cover artists who solicit their coverage. School coverage (two of the sources) usually doesn't meet this criterion. The Boston Globe source seems promising, but it's very short and I think it's difficult to call that non-trivial. Re: criterion 5, the article doesn't suggest that Isbell has released two albums.


 * It's difficult to really compare this entry with those of other musicians, because we know there are other entries that also don't meet these notability criteria. The idea is that, as an encyclopedia, WP covers subjects that are already notable. It's just not the appropriate outlet for budding artists who are in need of help with SEO or PR in order to become notable. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Akinlosotu (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I mis-cited criterion 5. I meant to cite criterion 4.  I believe this buttresses the Boston Globe source. Also, you mentioned before that there are certain guidelines for notability on WP, and cited references to buttress your point. Also, according to WP Guidelines, I wouldn't say the Boston Globe source is too short; it is a reliable source, and based on WP guidelines and guidelines at WP:MUSIC, I believe it passes this article for notability. Akinlosotu (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Boston Globe source is not covering a national/international concert tour. It's very briefly covering Isbell's plans for his first festival performance. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 12:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree with the consensus that the subject neither meets the GNG nor the criteria of NMUSIC. While the Boston Globe article just barely is long enough to qualify as "significant coverage" of the subject, both the GNG and NMUSIC criterion #1 require multiple sources.  The blizzard of primary webpages, blog posts, casual/fleeting mentions, user-inputted sources (such as IMDB) do not qualify, and none seem to be forthcoming.   Ravenswing   05:23, 15 December 2015 (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.