Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Mills

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Mills[edit]

Never of them and so I'm guessing non-notable. Cburnett 00:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing on allmusic.com, and his website shows that he's only recorded a couple self-produced albums. Not notable. Postdlf 02:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Spinboy 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve the right to add an actual vote once I've had time to think about it (I'm indecisive at present), but I want to stress that "I've never heard of the guy" does not automatically equate to "non-notable". I, for one, have heard of the guy. Bearcat 03:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I said "I'm guessing non-notable" but that's why I brought it here, to vote and discuss it. If he's notable, then rock-on. Cburnett 03:41, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He founded in 2002 and has since then led The New Foundation, a songwriters' collective with 382 members. Positive review of his solo debut from Sing Out! The Folk Song Magazine. Samaritan 04:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mills has released three albums albeit on independent labels. He has completed a national tour of Canada therefore complying with a Wikimusic project guidelines. He regularly attends folk music festivals in the US and Canada. Samaritan has highlighted his work with the New Foundation project. This leads me to the conclusion that he is notable within his genre. As we have people throughout the world here, we should recognise that people who are household names in one country may be nobodies in another. That also makes it important for the authors of articles to clearly outline the basis of the notability of the subject.Capitalistroadster 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Meelar (talk) 06:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, passes the Capitalistroadster test. Kappa 09:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Svest 11:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable.--Prem 15:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Seems to be barely borderline notable now, even in the Canadian folk scene, but what the heck, "Wikipedia is not paper." Let's check back on this guy in a year or so. Soundguy99 17:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, though the article is extremely stubby, the inclusionist in me changes me to KEEP and to reevaluate at a later date. Cburnett 17:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless evidence of notability is added to the article such as news coverage, etc. Gamaliel 01:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He does exist. He does have recordings. They have been reviewed [1]. Notable is not a reason for deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is cause to label it as vanity. I quote from WP:VAIN:

so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and establish as much notability as possible.

So in a way, yes, non-notability is grounds for deletion. Cburnett 04:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.