Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric D. Snider (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 07:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric D. Snider[edit]

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

A vanity page for a non-notable writer and singer/songwriter. It appears the bulk of his work is either self-published or written for obscure web sites. His music CDs also appear to be self-produced. His one claim to notoriety, a 2006 scuffle with Paramount over attending movie screenings, seems like WP:NOTNEWS. Warrah (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually the third nomination of this article, not the second; perhaps this nom should be renamed. Anyway, at the time of the previous AfD I rewrote the article to remove vanity elements, then successfully argued to keep this article based primarily on the variety of mentions in mainstream and notable sources like NPR and USA Today. Now, for this nom, I am undecided. On one hand, the sources are still verifiable and notable themselves, and I think this article could merit inclusion in an encyclopedia: for instance, serving as a data point for someone researching the relationship between film studios and film critics. On the other hand, in principle I support deletion of borderline-notable BLPs, and I freely admit that this article's subject has borderline notability: his appearance in the mainstream sources have been rather minor and incidental. So I stand neutral for this AfD. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you take into account his high profile firing, the NPR interview, and all of the Dr Demento stuff I think you get WP:N. Any of these individually I don't think would do it but combined you have an article. J04n(talk page) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "high profile" firing was from a low profile newspaper, the Daily Herald of Provo, Utah. The NPR interview was for an isolated 2006 incident which has no resonance today, thus violating WP:NOTNEWS. And Dr. Demento plays a lot of wacky songs by obscure singer/songwriters. Warrah (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how having some songs on a single radio show is relevant - notability is not inherited. Of the remaining references, all but one are unreliable. I couldn't find anything better with a search, so this appears to fail WP:N.--otherl left 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources. Not a career covered by secondary sources that would establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of good sources, and per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources used as coverage don't seem too reliable. The few reliable sources concerns only one event.--Pink Bull 20:36, 17 November 2009 (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.