Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ean Golden

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. Tone 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ean Golden[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)

BLP notability and sourcing issues, reads like PR Acousmana (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A near-orphan with no references, about a musician who falls far short of WP:NMUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can tell the only actual source is the subject's own website. Wikipedia is to be based on secondary, 3rd party indepdent coverage. It is not a directory of everybody and everything that has created a website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the article did have three references which the nominator removed before nominating. Have reinstated the MixMag source as it is a WikiMusic Project reliable source, as shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference isn't Mixmag, it's www.remixmag.com: and it's an article written by the subject of this AfD. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked said refs before deleting, none were suitable WP:RS cites for a BLP article. Acousmana (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It confirms he wrote for them so is an acceptable reference for that.Also being a near-orphan has got nothing to do with notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's a nothing source, simply not usable in this instance. Acousmana (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2020 (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.