Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kresovich

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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kresovich[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist has satisfied requirement of notable media stories (CNN, Kotaku, GamePro), has won notable music contest and produced works of consequence for major-award-nominated artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.114.82 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article itself confirms non-notability: he made "more than $1000" for his one and only album, which isn't even toilet-paper money by music industry standards. If we assume they sold for $15 each, that means about 65 copies sold! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It said he donated the profits which was over $1000, it says nothing about the overhead prices on the album. Before dismissing someone's accomplishment you should read the information more clearly and make sure you understand it. You also did not address the other points of notability either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.114.82 (talk)

Comment – None of the "news" stories are of a "non-trivial" nature. A one line mention in an article about someone else is not a reliable source. ttonyb (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also it should be noted that the information in question simply services the more notable information above. Is it as notable? I agree that it is probably not. However, for an artist I think it is important to have their entire discography available to all those who would like to learn more about him. For encyclopedic purposes, you wouldn't want to simply discard a section of someone's discography because it was before they started doing things that we as editors consider as notable. The information on the profits being donated is simply imformation that is relevant to mentioning his entire discography. The fact that he was scouted by Def Jam and donated all the profit to charity in my mind is relevant, if not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.114.82 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by individual editors, it is an assessment of the article's ability to meet the Wikipedia defined criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not the place to disseminate information about persons that do not meet Wikipedia based notability - I suggest that would be better served by a personal website. ttonyb (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero substantial coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spatulli (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2010 (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.