Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Woodward

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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Woodward[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Only limited local coverage from his town; no evidence this meets WP:BAND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Josh is one of the top Creative Commons artists. Many of the notability criteria don't apply, since he's not really a traditional artist, but he's got a larger audience than many major label bands. I can't speak for all of the criteria, but I know he won the top Jamendo artist, on a site with millions of users out of hundreds of thousands of tracks. He's also been the featured performer twice on WBGU's PBS concert series. He's definitely had significant radio airplay - I found out about him when I was living in Germany and he was on the radio (and later the in-house music at my grocery store). I agree that the article is a little lightweight, but this page is still useful. It's getting hundreds of Wikipedia hits a week, which shows I'm not alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:E4E1:9300:58E4:F434:DBA4:36EF (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC) — 2607:FCC8:E4E1:9300:58E4:F434:DBA4:36EF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Creative Commons artists don't get their own notability criteria; WP:MUSIC still applies. Hundreds of hits a week could easily by from Web crawlers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Put it down to my experience lacking on this but I've been pretty 'on the fence' about this one. My Delete vote is on the basis that 2 of the sources are his website and thus self published, one is a blog, one is YouTube (unreliable per RS if I'm not mistaken), the other three are what make as wonder. I call them as no good on the basis that they have nothing to back them up and so they cannot be judged as reliable. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets parts 7, 9 and arguably 1 of WP:BAND Mkrossum (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)— Mkrossum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. It'd be nice if we could keep him, but unfortunately he just doesn't pass notability guidelines. There's little to no coverage about him, very few reviews in reliable sources, and while popularity can help gain coverage it's never a guarantee of notability. Someone can be WP:POPULAR, but that in and of itself is not notability. As far as WP:BAND goes, it really all comes down to coverage in reliable sources. We can say that someone is a significant example of something, but without actual coverage in reliable sources (Pitchfork, AllMusic, Rolling Stone, etc) we can't actually prove that someone is a significant example. When it comes to the contest, the problem with this is that few contests/awards are so notable that they'd give absolute notability on that basis alone. I always say that only about 5% of any awards ever given (and this would be every award everywhere) would actually extend any notability and of those, less than 1% actually give that absolute notability. Since Song Fight! is held weekly, I don't think it'd really give any notability when you get down to it and As far as the sourcing in the article goes, a few of them are usable but they don't really show a huge depth of coverage. I'd say that maybe the Findlay Living article and certainly The Courier would be usable, but that's about it. It's a shame that there hasn't been more coverage, but the problem is that it just isn't out there. We can't even really count the podcast expose when we get down to it, because that wouldn't be considered a national rotation. (Meaning that you'd hear it at least 2-3 times a day on at least one radio station.) He's more notable than some of the other indie musicians out there, but right now he just falls short of notability guidelines. I have no problem with someone userfying the data if they so want, but I'd really recommend that they get a lot of help from WP:MUSIC before re-adding it to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 1 May 2014 (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.