Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Papp

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Papp

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

Is this house musician sufficiently notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bio and four album reviews at Allmusic, more than a dozen album releases listed there. --Michig (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Allmusic is over inclusive, in my opinion; certainly I am not seeing any consensus that having a bio or reviews there is sufficient for notability. --Nlu (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources. Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors. WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there. Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked. I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. --Nlu (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion at AllMusic help a great deal towards establishing notability of Western musicians IMO. Along with Papp's bio & reviews on that site, there are other examples of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to be found e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. Meets WP:NMUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 11:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just needs some more sources added to back up the unsourced information. Solid article, needing some work. ///EuroCarGT 22:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between the Allmusic reviews and the refs provided by Sparklism, passes the notability bar for me. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:07, 12 January 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.