Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Scott (singer)

: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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Hillary Scott (singer)]]=

:{{la|Hillary Scott (singer)}} ([{{fullurl:Hillary Scott (singer)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Scott (singer)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I tried redirecting this to Lady Antebellum, but it was declined by the author, who said that her winning an award from SESAC (verified [http://www.cmt.com/news/country-music/1599096/lady-antebellums-hillary-scott-is-sesacs-songwriter-of-the-year.jhtml here]) and writing the majority of Lady Antebellum's material was enough for a standalone article. Besides the fact that she recorded a non-notable, self-released album with her mother (Linda Davis, who is irrefutably notable), I see absolutely nothing that makes her sufficiently notable for a standalone article. (Keep in mind that all of the band's material was co-written by the other two members as well.) This article, as it stands, repeats material from Lady Antebellum's article in a desperate attempt to not be a stub, but I think she still fails to meet the criterion for individual member of a band, as she has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Merge with Lady Antebellum--  Rmzadeh  ►  15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep!I Just created it two days days ago, so there's the article is in its infant stage. As to why this should be kept;

::*Songwriter of the year from a "major" organization - SESAC [http://www.cmt.com/news/country-music/1599096/lady-antebellums-hillary-scott-is-sesacs-songwriter-of-the-year.jhtml CMT.com]

::*Listed as co-writer for 3 of the band's singles which have charted - Love Don't Live Here (#3) , Lookin' for a Good Time (#11), I Run to You (#9).

::*As for significant coverage, see [http://vucommodores.blogspot.com/2009/05/video-interview-with-hillary-scott-in.html interview with the official blog of Vanderbilt baseball team], [http://connecticut.metromix.com/music/article/life-on-the-bus/1101458/content interview with metromix.com], [http://www.gactv.com/gac/nw_headlines/article/0,,GAC_26063_5877825,00.html coverage from GAC]. This is all you need to pass WP:NOTE, since its significant coverage from reliable sources. [http://www.theboot.com/2008/11/11/lady-antebellums-hillary-scott-honored-by-sesac/ More] [http://entertainment.oneindia.in/music/international/2008/hillary-songwriter-of-the-year-131108.html coverage] [http://www.gactv.com/gac/nw_headlines/article/0,,GAC_26063_5939177,00.html about] the Songwriter of the year award.

So, Award + Songwriter with songs that have charted + Significant Coverage = Keep. Article is thin now, but it can definitely be improved. Corpx (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Corpx's well reasoned argument. Even if this article was just a stub for now, that would not be a valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep SESAC is a major performing rights organization. Its songwriter awards are notable, just like those from ASCAP or BMI. Having won a notable award from a notable organization, the subject is clearly an independently notable songwriter. Her possible lack of notability as a musician, the only thing the nominator took into account, is plainly irrelevant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Corpx, I too, agree with Rlendog. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean is should be deleted. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2009 (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.