Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rovics

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 of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Rovics

Rovics isn't notable. He's a singer with free music on the web. Plus, this entry reads like an advertisement. --Jason Gastrich 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We'll be nominating his Boxcar Betty next. Oh, we already did! Dlyons493 Talk 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay now you're talking Jason. More like this one, please. Ruby 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep with possible rewrite; "grassroots" musicians are a special case per WP:MUSIC, and this one in particular gets a lot (I mean a lot) of Google hits as well as coverage in thngs like Indymedia. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 05:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Musicians covered by The Washington Post ("On America's Stage, Performance Protest" January 29, 2003) and Los Angeles Times ("Political opinions, in the key of E", March 14, 2003) seem notable to me. -- Dragonfiend 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yep, another bad faith nomination made as some kind of "retaliation." Mark K. Bilbo 06:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's at Google News and they discuss his music there. (It isn't an article like "hey look at this guy named 'X' who I met on the bus to work today", in case someone wonders about my delete vote on Seaborg) This is good enough for me.--T. Anthony 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He's quite famous!
Speedy Keep, asserts strong notability under WP:MUSIC. Looks like none of the Gastrich nominations are going to get deleted. But then again, did he expect any of them to? Grandmasterka 10:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep About 213,000 google hits. This is a no-brainer. My suggestion is that the nomination be withdrawn. --Pierremenard 11:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as protest musician. Crunch 14:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mike Dillon 15:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently notable protest singer. --kingboyk 17:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Quite notable, and I will not support any delete that is made in bad faith. Jim62sch 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POINT. Latinus 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination, reasonably notable, independent musical artist - WarriorScribe 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable. Shame on the nominator who's nominating a string of biographies he does not agree with. Arbustoo 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the protest circuit, he's huge. Harvestdancer 02:41, 23 January 2006 (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.