Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SJ Tucker

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SJ Tucker

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:MUSIC; self-published on own minor label, no substantial independent recognition. Nandesuka (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to me that that Tucker may be a "minor" player in the music world, but of more significant note in the pagan world. The NewWitch magazine (cited several times in her article) is a pretty significant one one in the neo-Pagan world. The most recent article mentioned was the cover article for the issue. The WP:MUSIC page lists as one qualification for notoriety: "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions: Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." The NewWitch publications seem to fit that bill. Tucker is not a "mass media" type artist, but she is well-regarded in a notable sub-culture. Further, her collaborations with [[Catherynne M. Valente], Alexander James Adams, Gaia Consort, and Incus all add up to certain amount of notoriety. I would also note that the two folks on her Talk page who initially objected to her apparent lack of notoriety eventually changed their minds. -Kenllama/(talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, S.J. Tucker is a fairly significant player in the pagan/festival music world. She is extremely well known on the festival circuit and in the pagan music field; perhaps the article could indeed use more references and links to illustrate this. As Kenllama notes, the sub-culture in which she is well known is significant in size, making this article significant in readership as a Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnutic (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Keep S.J. Tucker has appeared multiple times in NewWitch magazine, which is a major Pagan and New Age publication. However, on the more mainstream front, she has positive reviews from the Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Arkansas Times, which are listed by Wikipedia itself as predominate news sources in their region. Those sources would seem to indicate a level of independent recognition even outside her religious/cultural niche. The proponent of deletion claims insufficent independent recognition and self-publishing render Ms. Tucker nonnotable. Self-publishing alone does not render her nonnotable. The article may need to be flagged for a re-write and include more independent sourcing, but deletion is inappropriate. Wikipedia's notability guideline for a topic (has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable) is met here, particularly in the case of the NewWitch articles, bolstered by the coverage in the print media of Memphis and Southeastern Arkansas. We are reminded that "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity". S.J. Tucker is notable; the article should stay. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, I note that this is the second time this year this article has been tagged for deletion with no real reason given. How many times are we going to go through this? What's Wikipedia's policy on articles that are tagged for deletion multiple times, the tag removed, and then tagged again? --Parcequilfaut (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (failed to login before, whoops.)[reply]
  - Further noting that upon another review of the entry, the Memphis Commercial Appeal article as well as newWitch, witchvox, and Cathrynne Valente references already appear as citations in the article, meaning that it will require little to no editing to meet the independent recognition criteria assuming arguendo that it does not already do so, and that the second request this year for the article to be deleted could be considered inappropriate under Wikipedia's policies about re-nomination of articles. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references establish notability in the field. It's not just WP:MUSIC (which is a reason to keep things unequivocally, not a reason to remove things) - this is not a robust nomination - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as others have pointed out, while S.J. Tucker may not be a major label musician, she is highly known and respected in her particular niche, and as such her article should not be deleted. Scarletwoman93 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - S.J. Tucker is not a major label musician, but she and her work is very important to neopagan culture. She and her work are well-known and respected for their originality, their innovation, and through her work S.J. Tucker is able to connect with everyone with whom she comes in contact. Her article should not be deleted. Libraryraven (Libraryraven) 06:40, 07 September 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Keep - Multiple articles in newWitch, Witch's Voice, and other references show that she is a notable performer in her niche. Note further that publishing music on one's own label is not in itself criteria for deletion. Independent music and independent record labels are not new, and cutting out major labels can result in a more profits for the artist, which is why former major label artists like Barenaked Ladies and Bradley Joseph have chosen to self-publish certain projects. JenKilmer (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject appears sufficiently notable. The name of the article needs some discussion, as it doesn't appear to conform to Wikipedia standards. - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SJ Tucker tours nationally and is well known. She isn't just some local-town musician who made an album; she has an extensive catalog of albums and a large fan base in cities all over the United States. She is a great example of a successful independent artist. Tfabris (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "self-published on own minor label, no substantial independent recognition." I think this statement can be easily argued. I see no wrong in being self-published on your own minor label, in fact I see it as commendable and therefore should be emphasized with her amount of success as an independent artist. I feel that last statement is false all together. I have been seeing SJ Tucker perform live for five years now starting in Memphis when I was 16. Her fan base has grown significantly over the past five years and she has toured all over the country. Not only is she self-employed but she actually makes enough money to survive on what she does. You can purchase her albums through a number of different sources, not just from her. I think that is the most amazing thing and envy her for her perseverance and success as an artist. - Foamyseabreathes (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (CDT) This template must be substituted.

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.