Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Peyton

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Peyton

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I really could not find any sources to help add to this page, and the ones that are there are no help at all. One large sessionography and then a minor mention from the New York Times in an article about someone else. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profiles in [1] and [2] and [3]. Gets a bit of a coverage in [4] and a couple paragraphs in [5] and in the NYTimes article cited. Seems to be a brief review of his album here. Passing in [6]. Newspapers.com cites a number of brief reviews of his two man band latitude. I think it adds up to GNG, albeit maybe not a clear cut case. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't feel that it's enough substantial coverage. (But kudos on the awesome source collecting.) I did see the Flying article when doing my Google Books search, but felt that it really didn't count towards GNG considering its brevity, similar to the NYT article. Those two just seem like decent mentions in articles largely about others. The two entries from the Poughkeepsie Journal are pretty good overviews of him, but its also just local coverage. The Boston Phoenix, Albuquerque Journal, and JazzTimes entries are brief but I would say that they are significant coverage. I'm just unsure if they're enough to establish GNG. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it's borderline, but I think the geographic distribution of the sourcing and range of years (1977 to 2003 by my count) in summation add up to GNG. I'll add that we shouldn't discount the Poughkeepsie Journal (although by itself it wouldn't establish GNG), as WP:AUD has never been extended to WP:NPERSON (despite proposals to do so). I'd consider it more regional than local coverage, considering its scope and circulation. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as overall there is enough coverage identified above to pass WP:GNG. Also note that articles that contain significant overage of a subject which is not the main topic of the article still count for GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Flying piece is bordering on its depth of coverage and the Cash Box piece seems trivial, but I think the Boston Phoenix and Poughkeepsie Journal pieces, combined with the middling-coverage of The New York Times piece in the article do show notability enough to just barely squeak by WP:GNG in that it's significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's not the strongest claim to notability, mind you, but it does meet the letter of WP:GNG and I think Eddie891's comment about the range of years that the sources span is a good point; this isn't some blip in coverage that came and went but is a long-lasting demonstration of the continuing notability and relevance of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2022 (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.