Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Carney

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. (Strictly speaking, Weak Keep) - there is a rough consensus with the sources listed that the subject just topples over GNG and N:MUSIC (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Carney[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)

There does not seem to be significant coverage of this classical musician, and I don't think he meets WP:MUS. Tacyarg (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a few more references which may mean that he passes WP:GNG. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say he passes, and unlike Kate Musker, he didn't ask to have his article taken down. I did one for her, and she didn't like it. It took a few months to get WP to take it down. I led the charge because I made the article and didn't want it to be a problem for her. -Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a google search on him, and while a good proportion of the articles are from the Baltimore Sun, but there are also articles in The Washington Post and other sources. It's only just past local interest, but I think there is enough there and the interest is at state level, not just (e.g.) a metropolitan area. WP:LOCALINT therefore isn't a problem.Ross-c (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I haven't found any references beyond the ones listed by Eastmain. It's borderline but I think the coverage is significant enough to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Much as per Power~enwiki. The CultureSpotMC piece is indepth, the others are ... eh ... sufficient as a sum, I think. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2018 (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.