Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Rosenthal (musician)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rosenthal (musician)[edit]

Fails every single point of WP:MUSIC. An attempt is made to provide notability by name dropping some very very minor musicians but as we know notability is not provided by knowing someone... Cameron Scott (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Abstain with comment~~Weak keep - I've been working on this article since it was created. I removed the db tag after the author claimed notability with three unlinked news articles. Eventually, I found two of the articles online and replaced the unlinked references on the page with their linked versions. I can't find the third article and I've given up as it gives no reference to where it was published. I think the question now is, does two articles fulfill "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. Sources is plural but does that only mean two? My head tells me to be an inclusionist and say keep but my gut tells me delete (which is why I'm abstaining). OlYeller^Talktome 05:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author has now supplied 3 verifiable references that show significant coverage in a reliable source that are independent of the subject. I changed my vote to keep.OlYeller^Talktome 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There does seem to be notability, so it's possible the article can be kept. More sources would be great, however. Basket of Puppies 07:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sources were posted today to strengthen case for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please advise if this amount successfully meets the requirements. One is a blog, which normally isn't valid, but it is from the Salt Lake Tribune and its an announcement of the concert at the Rose Wagner theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.14.42 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OlYeller 's comment that he'd "given up as it gives no reference to where it was published." - I found the article in question and replaced it with his inadequate prior reference.Jasonhankins435 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I haven't looked at the new references completely yet. As for my comment, I was frustrated that I wasn't getting any help from the author after repeatedly asking. I probably could have stated my feelings in a better way and for that, I'm sorry. Please accept my apology. Oh, and please sign your posts with ~~~~ so that people know what sections of commentary are yours. OlYeller^Talktome 18:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? what element of WP:MUSIC is presented - please be specific.--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OlYeller - I'm sorry, I guess I missed that you had repeatedly asked me to do something. Through what avenue were you asking me? I will be sure to look for your requests and follow up on them asap.

No worries. Here's where I had left you some messages: [1][2][3]. It doesn't really matter at this point and I totally understand that that you could have missed them. I'll do a write up on the talk page to see if we can get these issues worked out (if they haven't already been by the sources you've added). OlYeller^Talktome 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how I could cite that he is a University of Utah graduate as is recommended on the page? I am having difficulty with that one. Jasonhankins435 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than finding something in an article that says as such, you probably won't find anything. It's not defaming in any way so I wouldn't worry about it right now. It's a low priority fact to have a citation for right now, in my opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per current state of the article, the continued work on its improvement, and this additional reliable source: Lubbock Online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I see two proper articles, one trivial review, and one trivial concert announcement. I think it falls just short of establishing notability. Although a third proper source would push it over the inclusion treshold.--Sloane (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (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.