Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddy Peace

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. There is no doubt that this is a close call but the article is supported by verifiable coverage in reliable sources. Keep. JodyB_talk 21:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Peace[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability and no reputable sources at all. Previous attempts to deal with this by a re-direct into an overarching article have been met with restoration of content here by an IP editor. A merge and re-direct still looks the best option Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Buddy Peace has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". 114.145.97.108 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - where are these "..multiple , non-trivial published works..."? They are not referenced in the article and I had a look before nominating for deletion and couldn't see them. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are short reviews of one of a joint work (he laid down the backing track?) in Sputnikmusic and MTV, which are multiple and non-trivial sources. But considering he's hardly mentioned and I can't see anything else of note about him in non-blog sources, I don't think that's sufficient to support an article, or meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The subject has been interviewed at least a couple of times.[1][2] Looks good enough to me, and I stopped searching after finding those two, so there could be more. -- Trevj (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now spotted that the 2nd of those is already in the article, but my comments stand. -- Trevj (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Sionk, as the above sources provided by Trevj do not seem to establish the required notability for these articles. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:57, 13 November 2013 (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.