Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Stanley (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 delete. I initially closed this as "keep", but it was pointed out to me that all but one "keep" opinions are by accounts created after the nomination and with very few edits. That stinks of sock- or meatpuppetry. These opinions are discounted, resulting in a consensus to delete and salt. Sandstein 20:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update for future reference: these accounts have all been blocked by a checkuser as confirmed socks. Sandstein 13:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stanley (musician)

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

Re-creation of a deleted article (the 7th time, has to be some kind of record). Still the same interviews and low-quality sources. Still not notable. GermanJoe (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salt this title version too, see deletion log for Marcus Stanley and Marcus Stanley (pianist). GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC, Huesofcolor (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4, and salt. Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies criteria under WP:GNG. Agree that salting would be extreme given the high quality of the sources in the article. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wiki92man: Could you clarify please, which sources you consider "high quality" for a keep? Most of them are only unreflecting interviews with almost no secondary information beyond Stanley's own quotes, and can't establish notability on their own. And no other contributor has advised against salting yet, what do you mean with "it would be extreme", considering the article has been re-created against consensus 7 times? I usually don't inquire on others' AfD comments, but your statement confused me. GermanJoe (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes criteria for WP:GNG. I saw a source on the Washington Post and CNN, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all variants. This is still a minor gospel singer, notable only for 1) having been shot and 2) writing a message to Dylan Roof. In fact this version contains LESS in the way of references than the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Stanley (pianist). --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The creator of this article, User:Rondhhi, is almost certainly a sock of the blocked user Musiclovereveryday who created the first ~~half dozen iterations~~ version of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since several new users are citing WP:GNG, let's take a look at the article's nine references. Five of them are about his Facebook post to Dylann Roof. One is an interview with CBN News. One is a one-paragraph newspaper item about him being shot. And one is a self-referential link to his own album. Of those, only the CBN News interview is significantly about him. A Google search provides nothing additional. Considering this subject's history - multiple creations, deletions, recreations, saltings, use of name variants to get around the salting - I think the presumption has got to be "delete and salt". --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at first glance I was about to say delete, simply because of the ridiculous number of recreations. After doing some digging, I feel that it should be kept since the subject has been interviewed a lot. It may not pass Music requirements but does with general requirements. The article is a highly controversial given it's religious content. I would advise the closing admin to look pass the excessive recreations as it diminishes the subjects notability. Ovo16 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. This person passes WP:GNG off of the CBN, CNN, and Washington Post sources on his Dylann Roof post. These are all new since the last AfD, so there should not be a presumption of delete and salt; we have to evaluate the new sources, not write them off. Having said that, this article should not be allowed to be used as a promotional tool. It should emphasize what he's notable for, especially in the lead, and that's the Dylann Roof post. It should be moved to "Marcus Stanley", as the disambiguation does not properly refer to what he's notable for. ~ Rob^Talk 07:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CBN hardly qualifies as independent reliable source in this case (see the CBN article). CNN and Washington Post only offer repetitive interviews with little to no additional coverage beyond the single event (see also WP:BLP1E). Shootings and gang violence are, sadly, common events. This one is blown out of proportion by himself and some short-time media hype - WP:NOTNEWS applies as well. GermanJoe (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2015 (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.