Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Gilliard


 * 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-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Seth Gilliard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a musician, which literally just asserts his existence without even attempting any claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Literally speaking, half of the entire article is taken up just by his name and birthdate. I'm willing to consider withdrawing this if the article can actually be improved to assert and source any reason at all why he would actually warrant coverage in an encyclopedia — but this is not a place where every musician who exists at all gets to have an article just to advertise his existence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep article stratifies WP:NMUSIC #1 with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as [abc news, Charleston City paper, and the huffington post. This is without doing significant searches and just looking at the first three sources in the article. This isn't the German Wikipedia, we don't delete articles because they are stubs. [[User:Winner 42|Winner 42]] Talk to me!  20:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post and Charleston City Paper pieces are both just blurbs, which do not constitute substantive enough coverage of him to contribute anything to the question of whether he satisfies GNG or not. Which means he's sitting on one GNG-eligible source, not three, and one source isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - one article in a local newspaper does not qualify as sufficient coverage. Nothing suggests that WP:MUSICBIO is met.--Rpclod (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How do all the other sources in the article not provide significant coverage? Winner 42 Talk to me!  22:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Three of the six "references" in the article had to be stripped right off the top: one was a link to the front splash page of a website rather than to any content about Seth Gilliard on that website; one was to a college student newspaper, which is a class of sourcing that WP:NMUSIC expressly prohibits, precisely because student newspapers give much more coverage to local acts of no encyclopedic notability whatsoever; and one was to a YouTube video. And of the three that survived, two are blurbs which cannot help to get a person over GNG as they aren't long enough to constitute substantive coverage. So Rpclod is right, we've got one GNG-worthy source here, not several. I'll grant that he was wrong about which source it was, but he was right about how many there are. That said, I see that there is now an attempt under way to add a better class of sourcing — so we're not there yet in terms of the article actually containing any substantive content about him beyond a statement of his existence (the new sources are still just being piled up as a contextless morass of "ELs", instead of actually being used to reference any actual content improvements), but I do want to reiterate the part of my nomination where I said that I am willing to withdraw this if Heymann arrives. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in addition to the sources Winner provided, i was able to dig up this source. He appears to be notable. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 01:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the sources I added are sufficient to meet MUSICBIO. Everymorning   talk  00:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made to the article, Passes NMUSIC & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I struck my delete !vote based on the additions. I note that there are several deadlinks.  Some live reliable sources re college accomplishments would be nice.  Also some of the facts contained in the external links could be integrated into the article.--Rpclod (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable musician making a mark on classical music. Significant improvements need to be made to this article. Ovo16 (talk) 13:58, 9 August 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.