Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Norton

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. czar 04:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Norton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP that does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, coverage is largely either non-independent or non-significant and falls short of WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. But to be fair, he has credits in some notable films and has worked with various notable music theorists, and the references aren't bad either. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Keep, as there seems to be (beyond those in the article) "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". While the sources seem to be biased, since they are mostly magazines and websites concerning music, it does not impair independence (see WP:INDEPENDENT#Biased_sources). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks could you share some of them here please? Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with this assessment of the sources.

  1. [1] is a QA interview attached to an announcement of an upcoming concert, published by the Music Department of Norton's alma mater. While campus publications sometimes can be considered independent of students or alumni, byline-less press releases published by faculty departments are not.
  2. [2] is routine coverage by the Music Department
  3. [3] more routine coverage similar to #2
  4. [4] QA interview with no independent analysis
  5. [5] I think it would be a stretch to call this significant coverage, it's largely a softball interview with almost nothing other than quotes from Norton.
  6. [6] Not entirely sure what's going on here, the website appears to be a resume-site for one Elizabeth Baker. I don't think it's reliable
  7. [7] more coverage like #2 and #3. Slightly less routine, but not independent
  8. [8] QA interview
  9. [9] crowdsourced (read: unreliable) source, doesn't mention Norton
  10. [10] Quotes Norton but doesn't provide much independent coverage about him
  11. [11] Alumni publication that actually provides some coverage of Norton, best coverage so far
  12. [12] Independent, reliable coverage...of Honest Iago, that barely mentions Norton. It's not significant coverage of Norton
  13. [13] This link wouldn't open for me, but it appears to be another Honest Iago review at best
  14. [14] "Get to know a founder", not independent
  15. [15] Reads like a sponsored post, independence and significance of coverage are dubious
  16. [16] Reads like a press release
  17. [17] Listing by the record company that published one of Norton's works, not independent
  18. [18] Contains a piece by Norton, not about him

  All told, we've got one, maybe two independent pieces about Norton with borderline-significant coverage, and some ok coverage of one band that he was in that doesn't mention him much. I don't think this meets GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rosguill Thanks a lot for putting together all these links. Seeing them near one another surely gives a different picture. Some of the links are less independent that seemed to me the first time I looked at them. Some talked more about the band than I had initially assessed. However, we have to agree that he appears quite often here and there, and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" WP:BASIC. QA interviews cannot be discarded, as it also contributes to establish the subjects notability. Why would you interview someone that is not notable? I agree with you that this interview [19] is not reliable, as the website owner has a reason to publish whatever (WP:CONFLICT, I guess). But the others are fine. For completeness, I'd like to add the links [20] and [21].
  
  

  Anyway, now that I was forced to go over all these sources, I'm slightly leaning towards a delete because all sources fail one of the pillars "reliable", "independent" and "significant coverage", and they do not make me comfortable in saying that Norton is notable in the sense of WP:BIO "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be worthy of notice" or [...] "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary". Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  QA interviews don't provide us with any information other than what comes out of the subject's mouth; they're not usable for building an article except to contextualize or flesh out points already made by secondary sources. Sometimes QA pieces will open with a blurb about the subject, and that can be mined for writing an article, but in these examples I don't recall seeing much of that across the QA interviews. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's definitely not notable for his teaching and I see nothing that meets any criteria at WP:NCREATIVE. Being an "assistant music editor" for two TV shows and an unreleased film do not seem like enough to me. There are a lot of sources, but when I go through them I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage from sources that are both reliable and independent. Therefore, I'd say he fails to meet WP:GNG and so I find no notability criteria that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.