Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Futrell

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Futrell[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources in the article are his own site and own listing published by a society of composers. No independent sourcing, and searches turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tyler Futrell is a member of the Norwegian Composer Association, (similar to Britain's Royal Philharmonic Society), celebrating its centenary this year. That in itself is notable. To delete this composer we may as well delete every entry in the Norwegian contemporary classical composers category. Norway might not like that . Mark^Dask 20:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure that membership in that organization makes one notable. Seems more like a union than the RPS. Onel5969 ^{TT me}01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First two sentences of the RPS History section would suggest an identical genesis to the Norwegian Composer Association, and aint union/society fruit from the same tree? Mark^Dask 01:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, unions and societies are definitely not from the same tree. Perhaps someday in the future, if they become selective, the NCA might be grounds for notability, but right now it appears to be simply something that anyone can join. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly true in this case, given Futrell is Californian. Mark^Dask02:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said - anyone considering deleting Futrell as "not Notable" should take the time to hear this, (National Library of Norway ref added). Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 01:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His Papua Lingua is a beautiful composition, but doing some searching unfortunately does not reveal sources that would make him pass WP:BASIC, nor does this young composer yet meet the subject specific guideline WP:COMPOSER. Sam Sailor 19:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sufficient reliable source coverage to establish notability under general notability guidelines, and it doesn't look like he meets notability for composers either, unless some of his compositions can be shown to be notable in their own right.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (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.