Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Grushecky

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Grushecky[edit]

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

Non-neutral biography, no third-party sources, Wikipedia not for promotion Mwbeatty (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional qualities of the article are problematic, but the subject also appears to be quite notable. I would say Keep and clean up. Hedge trimmers okay with me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 30 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) 01:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to an earlier version of the article such as [1] before the recently added promotional content. If nothing else, Grushecky is known for his collaborations with Bruce Springsteen, and he could be shown to satisfy WP:MUSIC if not for the inappropriate promotional content which was added in the last month or so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that substantially all of the promotional version added last month had been copied from the artist's official website. I've removed that content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 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) 05:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per coverage in HuffPo, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Rolling Stone. Jinkinson talk to me 16:11, 12 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.