Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D/C (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 keep. Cavarrone 07:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D/C (musician)

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

My specific PROD removed one day before its set time for deletion, with the lone basis of an existing Allmusic link, which of course is not convincing for notability alone; everything here is not at all substantial, both information and sources, and none is to be expected since he's only been active a year. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the allmusic link was not existing as I added it and it is a biography rather than just a listing which is more than most musicians get on allmusic, mainly just listings.It is early in the career of the act so this is borderline but he does seem notable. Regarding the prod removal I tend to leave it to the last minute in the hope that someone else will have deprodded it. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not actually showing us how, where and why the subject is convincingly notable for an article, yet despite also having listed all of my analyzed concerns above. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but I'd like more. Surprised he couldn't get any chart action as yet - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We have a short Allmusic bio, plus [1] (yes I know it's an interview, but also contains content written about him), [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Not great in terms of depth, but probably covered widely enough to justify keeping. --Michig (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply having an Allmusic is still questionable for the needed substance and going into some of these, I notice they are not only questionable music blogs, but they also simply advertise him, such as the fact of his career plans and the last one apparently only being some "5 best new songs this week", hardly actual substance, especially considering how underwhelming the article currently is. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you consider "questionable music blogs", and which ones "simply advertise him"? --Michig (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2016 (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.