Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Vickers (fiddler)

:{{la|William Vickers (fiddler)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|William Vickers (fiddler)}})

Paragraph 2: "Little is known of the man" / WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

*Delete Very little seems to known about this person which doesn't indicate notability. The manuscript he wrote may or may not be notable, if it is the info should be added on an article on that- Travelbird (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I will amend the title if that is preferable - but the William Dixon (piper) article is in a similar situation - an important MS about whose author we know little beyod his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gibbons 3 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, I think it might be preferable to have the article on the manuscript rather than the man. The same may be true in the William Dixon case, but that could be discussed elsewhere. --Deskford (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done this - William Vickers manuscript is the current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gibbons 3 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::Neutral After the page move I am now changing my vote to neutral. I really don't know enough about piping/Fiddling to decide whether or not this manuscript is particularly notable, so I'll defer to the experts on this one. Ideally we would require a couple more source to establish notability more clearly. Travelbird (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can add a discography to the new page, of modern recordings including Vickers' tunes. The influence of this music, particularly in the folk revival in the NE from the 1960's to the present, is clear, and an article on the topic is necessary. Shifting the emphasis of the title from the man to the MS was correct however.John Gibbons 3 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2011 (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.