Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Shibe


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sean Shibe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, coverage is sparse at best. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: appears notable enough in expanded article. A solo classical guitarist can't meet many of the criteria in WP:BAND, but I think Brighton and Wigmore Hall recital reviews and interview in The Scotsman etc are enough. This page also has a quote from a review of his Wigmore Hall 2014 concert in Classical Guitar Magazine, to which I don't have access, which appears to be further independent coverage in reliable source. Pam D  14:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Radio 3 broadcast satisfying bullet 12 of WP:BAND: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Pam  D  14:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Initially I thought this a borderline case, but improvements to the article by and  satisfy me as to the notability of the subject. --Deskford (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:MUSBIO Criteria 12 [1] and [2]. Thanks User:PamD for sorting out the article. Aust331 (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - By all descriptions a talented musician, the youngest ever student the at the RCS. He probably satisfies WP:GNG on the basis of amount of coverage he has already achieved. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources about the subject. North America1000 11:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No notable references. Articles have no place on Wikipedia until at least 80 independent references from varying news agencies, academic journals and opinion blogs can be cobbled together and meet the biases of the administration. Article was deprodded for no reason is a legitimate deletion argument and if you disagree with me you're wrong. See Everything and Nothing 50.32.212.216 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * References are not "notable"; they're either reliable or non-reliable. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of these are in the article. North America1000 19:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 50's just being sarcastic (and doing a fine job, I might add). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG base on sources already showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2016 (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.