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 no consensus on whether this meets notability guidelines or not. Secret ^account 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tuttle

[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking GHits and GNEws of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How exactly does he fail WP:BIO? Probably the easiest test to apply is Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Others (to which WP:BIO#Entertainers of course links with the comment See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.) which reads 6. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. The two hymns listed in the article both appear in many contemporary hymn books; They are the worship music equivalent of jazz standards. There are several other criteria that could also be applied, but that's the easiest one to verify. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure that being included in a couple of Hymn books constitutes compliance with this guideline. It shows potential popularity, but not that these are necessarily standards. reddogsix (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two are major hymnaries, in different countries. What evidence would you expect, in this genre? Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something that meets Wikipedia guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which this does, see above. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The claim regarding ghits above is in contrast to the searches I supplied at Talk:Carl Tuttle#Contested deletion, and my request there for links didn't produce any evidence in reply either, so far. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The response is there. reddogsix (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still with no links, and the figures you claim don't match those of the searches for which we do have links. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do, see the talk page comment. reddogsix (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your latest updates which do (at last) include details of your searches. I have replied there. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do make mistakes, but I think I've given the editors who have proposed first a PROD, then a declined speedy, and now this AfD, ample chance to explain their reasons for regarding Tuttle as non-notable. We now have two reliable dead-tree sources that include his bio (see article and talk). He may be no John Lennon, but in his genre he's a person of considerable interest and renown, he satisfies WP:BIO as described above (and if he didn't, it would suggest that the guideline needed a tweak, see article talk), and the current version of the article (of which I am of course the creator) is a useful stub. Andrewa (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does one source (regardless of type) adequately support the article (meet the notability guidelines) - probably not. It should be noted that we are not able to establish the substance of the that reference - neither of us have access to the pay site. The establishment of a lyric or youtube vid does not meet the criteria of WP:RS, it may serve to establish popularity, but popularity does not equal Wikipedia based notability - hence the difference in number of valid supporting reference - my one versus your two.

I am not counting pages to establish or deny notability, I am looking at the substance of the GHits - none of which are non-trivial or of substance. If I have missed references of substance, please add them in and I shall support its inclusion.reddogsix (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing several different things here so far as both the facts and policies and guidelines go... can you be specific as to why this article should be deleted, in terms of policy (with link(s) to the specific section(s) please)?

As an example, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence reads in part Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I interpret this to mean that a single source is adequate for the purposes of verifiability (although of course more is better). That's the sort of reference to policy I'd like to see for your claim above that Tuttle is non-notable, and also for your speculation that one source may not be enough. As another example, see the quote above in response to your relatively vague claim that he fails WP:BIO, suggesting that he doesn't fail it at all.

The one source given in the article is not a pay site, it's a book, I own a copy and it's available from many sources as far as I can see by following the ISBN link. You can even browse a little of the contents I see, have you tried this?

The paid website is just an alternative means of accessing a second dead-tree source, mentioned on the talk page, and I can't see any problem in getting it eventually and adding it to the article in due course (again, this confidence is partly by following the ISBN link), but frankly don't see the hurry. Again, it gives verifiability.

If we deleted every article that depends on sources which aren't either available online or in your personal library, I suspect we'd lose an awful lot. That's not what verifiability means at all. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading too much into my comment - admittedly, I have led you astray with my comment about "paysite." I do not believe the article meets WP:ENTERTAINER nor that it is supported by adequate reliable sources. (I do not believe a single book source combined with the lyrics is adequate.) As far as my "paysite" comment goes, I misread you comment to say the article reference was behind a "paysite." I do not question your cited reference, nor do I propose we delete, "...every article that depends on sources which aren't either available online or in your personal library."reddogsix (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've now expressed a personal opinion that one source isn't adequate, in response to my citing a policy that seems to indicate that it is. And you've now said that you don't think Tuttle meets the notability guideline for Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities, none of which he is, and ignored the guideline I cited above. If that's not bad enough, the very guideline you do cite also links to the one I cited [1] saying See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.... and of course that's exactly what Tuttle is. How could you miss that? I'm sorry, but I have to say that I think you are now just wasting our time.

I made a bad mistake in saving the article to the article space when it was PRODable (I was on a shaky connection at the time and didn't want to lose my work if it dropped out, but I should have saved it to user space instead). But that valid PROD was validly answered. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. Wasting your time. That's a little harsh is it not. If you believe discussion is a waste of time, my apologies. Yes, I voiced an opinion, not as an absolute, but as somewhat a question. I have not seen you provide evidence that a single reference is adequate but since we seem to have reached an impasse, I suggest we just disagree and let the AfD be decided by others. My best to you.reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that a single reference is adequate is above: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence reads in part "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I interpret this to mean that a single source is adequate for the purposes of verifiability (although of course more is better). [2]

I do apologise to you and the community for commenting here on your behavior. That is another bad mistake on my part; Here is not the place for it.

And I agree that we seem to have reached an impasse rather than consensus, and I regret that too. See User:Andrewa/discuss. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search reveals the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability, and there is no limitation to sources that are free on line, rather than paid or print. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poor stub, but his role as a worship leader in the original Vineyard Fellowship suggests considerable notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am curious, how does becoming part of the worship team support notability? reddogsix (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2013 (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.