Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Black

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. Noting in passing that "delete, not notable" is not an argument I can give any weight to. If there is evidence behind your argument, you need to tell the closer what it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Black[edit]

[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)

Not notable either as an athlete or a musician Nswix (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Martial arts, and Canada. Nswix (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was created by an experienced editor back in 2006, when the notability rules for musicians were much looser. Robin Black actually has an AllMusic profile ([1]), but it is a very brief mishmash of two different acts. One is called Robin Black & the Intergalactic Rock Stars and the other is simply called Robin Black. Neither of those has any additional significant coverage that I can find, and are only found in the usual retail/streaming services. Meanwhile, this article attempts to cover the entire life story of the guy named Robin Black, which is inconsistent, and his other activities in martial arts aren't even close to notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Black+IGS and Robin Black as a person don't really have two separate notability claims for the purposes of warranting two standalone articles here — in fact, even the band was only "Robin Black+IGS" on one album, and was just billed as "Robin Black" on the other. So they don't have detachable notabilities at all, because the band were ultimately just session musicians playing behind an individual person: they're one topic rather than two, in the same sense that there would be absolutely no point in having two separate articles about Natalie Imbruglia as a person and "Natalie Imbruglia (band)" as a band fronted by that person (which has, in fact, been attempted on Wikipedia in the past). Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sure is an odd response in which you debunked a recommendation that I didn't make. Oh well, my vote stands but I have no significant argument with the different opinions below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DooomDayer, I just made a massive addition and reorganization and added many coverage from reliable sources. His martial arts ventures are actually what makes him the most notable. He has become one of the most recognized figure in Mma as an analyst. Please go take a look Lethweimaster (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Searching "Robin Black" and "Intergalactic Rock Stars" on ProQuest gives over 200 results, from a wide variety of publications, such as Toronto Star, The Ottawa Citizen, and Billboard. Almost all of these articles are well-over a decade old, which might explain why little was coming up for Doomsdayer520 on Google search. --Jpcase (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link these sources? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be logged in to ProQuest to see them, but Wikipedia gives people access to ProQuest here. Sign in to ProQuest using your Wikipedia account, search "Robin Black" "Intergalactic Rock Stars", and you should see hundreds of results. --Jpcase (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is just an old article that was created in 2006 to 2006-vintage content standards, and hasn't been improved as much as it should have been as those standards evolved and changed. He's not nearly as prominent, and thus not nearly as top of mind for people, in 2023 as he was 15 to 20 years ago — hell, even I had pretty much forgotten that this article even existed, and I was its original creator — so the article merely got overlooked by the "fixing old articles" crew as quality standards were refined and tightened up. But notability is based on the existence of appropriate, notability-building sources, not on whether they're all already in the current version of the article or not — and, as noted by Jpcase, he most certainly does have sufficient coverage to get this article back up to contemporary standards. I'll take a stab at fixing it today. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now solidly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Bearcat, I also added many more sources. Lethweimaster (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simple google search shows that subject clearly passes WP:GNG with an abundance of coverage from reliable sources. Its important to make improvements or add tags before nominating for deletion or voting here. Seems like no one made any searches. The subject is one of the most celebrated MMA analyst in the combat sports world. I added references and reorganized the article completely. Great coverage from Bloody Elbow, VICE, MMA Junkie, MMA Mania, Winnipeg Sun, Calgary Herald, Sportskeeda, Lethwei World, The Joe Rogan Experience, Winnipeg Free Press, Sportsnet, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen ect. Lethweimaster (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources currently showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2023 (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.