Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Guthrie


 * 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 no consensus. Xoloz (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Will Guthrie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No real assertion of notability - perhaps I've missed how the subject meets WP:MUSIC? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Only four Yahoo hits which specifically talk about this guy. Come back when you get a contract. Blueboy96 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The number of ghits in this case is not relevant. A lot of them are for pages on Woody Guthrie and contain at least one verb in the future tense. Yet all of the first few are on Will Guthrie, and most of them independent, pushing him barely above the notability threshold IMO. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to push it, can you explicitly detail how the article meets WP:MUSIC please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. This guy has received at least some independent coverage such as tis article on ABC Radio National and the Melbourne Age . Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment looks like those two articles are trivial - still not meeting WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment your definition of trivial is quite different to mine then - the ABC one at least is an in-depth discussion of his current recording along with a bio. The work is specifically ABOUT Guthrie. Garrie 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ... and the other? I think we still need to be convinced he meets WP:MUSIC.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC: 'It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.' Auroranorth (!) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, I'm sure that there are some references for him, but I can't find them right now. As it is he doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC.  Lankiveil (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC, seems to be self-publishing and no evidence of commercial career or performance, hence no WP:RS available either. Orderinchaos 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Capitalist Roadster - meets WP:Music (has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable) - both Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Age are independant reliable sources--Matilda talk 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No-ones doubting the quality of the sources, but I am seriously doubting whether those articles could claim to be non-trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In my view sufficiently non-trivial to meet the criteria. This eventually becomes very subjective if you want to say there are articles (and they are not mere paragraph mentions) in independant reliable sources but somehow you wish to pass judgment that they are somehow trivial - they are published works which seem to meet the criteria - how from the criteria do you deem these articles trivial?--Matilda talk 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, even though I tagged it. I'm an eventualist.  The good cites are out there to show musical notability. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete falls a bit short of WP:MUSIC. RMHED (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (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.