Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harrison (singer/songwriter)

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. Sandstein 11:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Harrison (singer/songwriter)

David Harrison (singer/songwriter) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Image:David Harrison.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Prod removed and the original reasons still stand, this probably fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO, has no reliable sources so not verifiable. Most significant editors are all WP:SPAs. The Rambling Man 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no claims to meeting WP:MUSIC and no sources to back up what claims there are. Nuttah68 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• The artist in the article is a genuine person, the product is genuine, as is the information given. For verification, please check on the wesite link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs).
• Weak Delete - what Portland12 says is true, but we're not just looking for verification; Wikipedia policies also require that a biographical article should establish notability. No one's disputing that this man exists; the question is whether he is notable. WP:BIO requires evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, which is not provided, as the only source is to the subject's own website. Delete therefore, unless independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• The artist is notable, on a more local/cult status perhaps than on a nationwide status, but in a climate where the major record labels dominate, someone must support the indie labels, and the 'indie' artists. The album in question appears to be linked to the Probe Plus label, a renowned label which has supported unsigned bands/artists and got music to listeners, which is the important point. If we ourselves are debating this deletion, then thats a good pointer to the fact that everyday people can have a say in what we want to say - which is democratic, thus this particular artist, though being on an indie label, still can reach the ears of a limited audience, and democracy can still work, without domination from bigger authorities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment indeed, this is a democratic discussion but WP has a number of well-defined policies for biographies which you would be advised to familiarise yourself with in order to prevent the article being deleted, namely WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:RS and WP:V. Feel free to get in touch with me if you'd like to discuss this further. The Rambling Man 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the notability of the artist (after reviewing your references above)he has independent and non-trivial sources with several reviews of his album by un-related music websites, some as far as South America and throughout Europe, he's on the UK based Channel 4/Music page and also has a number of well visited myspace profiles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs).

• • Comment excellent news, so may I suggest that you add these citations (see WP:CITE), assuming they are reliable sources to the article in question, perhaps visit Wikipedia's biography project and ensure the article in question is written from a neutral perspective. Also, since all major edits have been to this article from three single-purpose accounts, could I also suggest WP:COI just to be sure. The Rambling Man 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete promo. Releasing an album is not sufficient evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In regards to suggestions added by The Rambling Man, I'v edited the article in question with citations from independent, reliable, non-trivial sources.
• Keep - the article now seems to meet all criteria when examined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

• Comment there is not enough to change my decision yet. Both the Channel 4 and Nucleus sites are actively requesting user contributions so are not independent. That leaves one local newspaper article which, IMO, is not enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - two other sources added which are independent of user contributions as they are music review sites. There seems to be many of these if you 'Google the name and album. portland12 12:50, 8 March 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.