- 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. Nominator's change of opinion is noted, though withdrawal is impossible per WP:WITHDRAWN. Kurykh (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Schwarz (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BAND and WP:BIO. Fail to identify notability from sources, which seem to be mix of entertainment blogs and invalid entries. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Czar, please add the sources, and text if applicable, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian, they're currently in the article (refs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11–13). Might have been one or two more small things I found outside, but Fader and Vice are good sources, City Paper is local but okay, the question is just whether this coverage together is significant. I remember at least one being at extended length. czar 21:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Czar, I agree that City Paper is reasonably reliable. Please continue to work on this article to bring it to WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I hadn't worked on the article (I was actually just passing through to close it when I looked at the sources), but I cleaned it up a bit. Again, I don't think it's a strong case, but the Vice Noisey source is great for detail and expansion. Based on the current bibliography, I think there's adequate support for an article that does justice to the topic. czar 07:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Excellent work Czar. If it is reasonably notable, is it worth me withdrawing the nomination today. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're satisfied with the sourcing, sure, but I'm under no illusions that it's a clear-cut case. I think the sourcing is good (read: minimally robust) but I'm open to other opinions. When articles are on the cusp but have enough to cover the basic importance of the topic, I try to be generous. czar 17:37, 28 March 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.