Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Hinton

: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 speedy delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Nick Hinton]]=

{{ns:0|B}}

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

Fails to assert or demonstrate notability. Google searches and discussion with the main editor of the page (see User talk:Mrtriangles#Nick Hinton) demonstrate that notability is not established and appears unlikely to be established at this time. Therefore the article should be deleted. Rogerb67 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is my opinion that the user Rogerb67 - who has insisted that this article is deleted, is trying to prevent the natural growth of this article, at the beginning of this artist's career. I have made several attempts to argue that this article should remain but Rogerb67 seems to ignore all my points and insist that the article should be deleted. Having read the guidelines for AfD, I can see that in some instances, it is suggested that articles do sometimes start out in bad shape, but can be improved over time. Deleting the article prevents that. Please see my talk page for my arguments against deletion. Thank you. - Mrtriangles (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Why is it you are trying to have the article kept now, you contested the prod, and yet just a month ago you blanked it and requested deletion as author, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Hinton&diff=260214740&oldid=260208250]--Jac16888Talk 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:*The artist requested deletion at that time and I was trying to honour that request. Mrtriangles (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This article isn't in "bad shape". The problem is that it's about a non-notable musician. Wikipedia is not the place for "emerging" or "promising" artists to build a following and get coverage. It is a place for articles about people who are fully "emerged", people who are sufficiently notable to have already attracted third party, independent, coverage in reliable, verifiable sources, as defined and required by Wikipedia. Nothing in the current article indicates that this has happened. None of the alternative criteria for musicians at WP:MUSIC have been met either. The argument that someday this person might become notable is no reason whatsoever to keep the article. The article comes after they are notable but not before. I wish Nick Winton well in his chosen career, but it's too soon (if ever) for an encyclopedia article about him. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Voceditenore, couldn't have said it any better myself. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:*What about the support given to this article months ago on the Nick Hinton discussion page? What about the countless other articles or stubs on musicians that remain on Wikipedia that aren't notable according to the guidelines? What about the fact that it was contested back in August 2008 and then left to develop? To pick randomly, this page: Maria Solheim. Is this any more notable? I think you are trying to remove the page without considering its relevance to providing a biography on a living musician, regardless of what your rather patronizing opinions on his (if ever) career might be. Mrtriangles (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

::*Comment If you think an article is not notable and can't find any reliable significant 3rd party coverage, then by all means nominate it for deletion. Whether or not this guy is famous is irrelevant, unless there is SIGNIFICANT 3RD PARTY COVERAGE then the article is unencyclopedic. You should read WP:N and WP:V and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.-- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:::*Comment There is no "support" for this article on its talk page. The word "support" in the banner for the biography project (musicians group) means nothing more than all biographical articles on that subject are within the scope of that project. It should not be taken to imply any judgement on the notability of the subject or the viability of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

::*Comment Agreed. I respect Wiki's notability guidelines and I thank you for listening to my arguments to keep the article.Mrtriangles (talk) 18:39, 26 January 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.