Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cask Thomson

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. No one has really even hinted at notability. Courcelles 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cask Thomson

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

Subject does not meet general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for music ensembles. The only non-first-party source in the article is iTunes, which is not a reliable source. I tagged the article with {{Self-published}} a few times in an attempt to inspire the main editors to start digging, only to have it removed with no actual changes made.[1][2][3] Since they couldn't provide any sources, I thought this may be a better course of action. It should also be noted that the majority of edits here were made by two IPs, 110.XX.XXX.XXX and 220.XXX.XXX.XXX, which seem to have intimate knowledge of the subject and may somehow be related. This editing behavior could be seen as a conflict of interests. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the artist's two album articles that would rely on the artist's article to exist:

Delete for the reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll find most of the editors (like myself) are related to the artist via the Hillsong network, I think we should pull some of the content out such as gear etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.148 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The only sourcing for the artist article is iTunes and a whole slew of primary sources (MySpace, Facebook, etc.). Searching also yields no WP:RS indicative of WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Regardless, no evidence of notability, as the nominator suggests; consequently, the album articles should be removed for the same reason. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say the artist is definitely notable as a vocalist for Hillsong and having worked with many artists and producers such as teh infamous Mike Hedges. He is also an act at this Years Sydney Big Exo Day and I believe he will be playing Easterfest 2011. I get where your coming from in terms of notability but I believe that the artist is in fact notable amongst many christian artists and producers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.148 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what are the reliable sources for this assertion? Simply saying "it's notable" without providing any corroboration is not constructive in the discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page would need to be re-written, searching for "Cask Thomson" on google will uncover a few results, but you will notice A LOT of torrent sites, iTunes pages and of course lyrics and setlist pages for shows he did at Hillsong's auditorium in Sydney (http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/cask-thomson/2010/hillsong-powerhouse-sydney-australia-1bd4a938.html) Not saying any of this makes him notable, just saying the guy exists and if pages of the ones he works with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purified_%28rapper%29) are available then why not a page on him? I dont think the page should be taken down but I think it needs to be verifiable and perhaps written that little better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.148 (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2010 (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.