Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Erelli

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. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Erelli

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

Person Not Notable Bansal (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep-- Notability is adequate per the secondary sources like this one [1] listed in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keithbob. The Telegraph, Washington Post and Huffington Post articles meet WP:MUSICBIO Dolescum (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage he has received is not substantial enough to warrant a page Bansal (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has Mark Erelli "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician"? I would say so, based on some of the many references already included in the article, including those mentioned above. That means he meets criterion #1 of WP:NMUSIC and also the WP:GNG, so I don't see how the argument that "the coverage he has received is not substantial enough to warrant a page" holds up. Keep. — sparklism ^hey! 10:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- I was asked to help with improving the article several months ago and took great care to provide adequate secondary sources. I agree with comments above that the article is adequately sourced and meets criterion #1 WP:NMUSIC and also WP:GNG. Kmzundel (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in good sources to show that an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to news.google.com and search for Mark Erelli, one article comes up. I don't know anyone who has heard of him. Bansal (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google news results only go back a few weeks, so it's not surprising that there are few results. WP:NMUSIC doesn't include a clause that people you know need to have heard of the subject. --Michig (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick keyword search of Ebsco's Newspaper Source database retrieved 55 citations. Kmzundel (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably local newspapers mentioning his performances, and possibly other people who share his name. Even the one article I found in Google News was a passing mention that he had performed somewhere. A notable figure would have far more coverage, even if it only supposedly goes back a few weeks. You must be hardcore fans, he is not notable by an objective standard. Bansal (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is already enough notability in the article for Wiki purposes. StuartDouglas (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a quote from a review of Erelli's album Delivered published in The Huffington Post that seems to nicely support Keep. This is a source not previously cited in the article. Kmzundel (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was already sourced enough to establish notability at the time of nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And what a hilarious AfD! It starts with the nomination "Person Not Notable": which lect of English is this? And it gets better: "I don't know anyone who has heard of him." Me, I've no idea if I know anyone who has heard of him. (I lack the energy to email everybody to ask.) I'd never heard of him, because I don't routinely read the Torygraph, WashPo or HuffPo. But now that I do read of him there, I can see that there's no problem of notability. (Some of this may be apposite.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first experience (if I remember correctly) with WP:AFD. I just read the policy on closing a discussion. Can I assume that some uninvolved editor or Admin will [automatically] close the discussion tomorrow, if there seems to be a consensus? Does that person also remove the tag that was placed on the article? Thank you. Kmzundel (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this WP:SNOW AfD will be closed in the next few days and the uninvolved, closing party will remove the AfD tag from the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Keithbob! Also, I wasn't familiar with WP:SNOW so I appreciate the heads-up on that. Kmzundel (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (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.