Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyles Lannon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Nyles Lannon and merge the album articles there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyles Lannon[edit]

Nyles Lannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just don't see this folk musician (or the two albums he released, listed below) as notable. Delete all. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Fails WP:GNG. Only primary sources found. Gm545 (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Nyles Lannon article and merge the album articles into it. There's sufficient coverage readily available despite the current unavailability of Google News Archive, e.g. Allmusic, Allmusic, AV Club, Paste, MTV (which also states that the LA Times considered his album Pressure one of the best pop albums of the year), East Bay Express, CMJ New Music Report, and David Keenan's book England's Hidden Reverse. That's not an exhaustive list of coverage - following WP:BEFORE could have avoided the need for this discussion. --Michig (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These independent label musicians often get a very short spurt of coverage from multiple sources — and then die away as far as mainstream coverage is concerned. WP:15M applies, I believe. --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you examine the cites mentioned by Michig and ones that I've added to the article, you will find coverage from reliable sources over a span of years, so don't see how WP:15M applies. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources. Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors. WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there. Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked. I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. --Nlu (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These boilerplate responses suggest that as little thought has gone into them as the original nominations. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • These allegations of boilerplate responses suggest that as little logical thought has gone into thinking about whether this response was valid. Again, search results yield nothing but "trade links" as far as I can see. No general notability. Equivalent to minor leaguer, if that. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cut and pasted the exact same response into several AfDs, neither one dealing with the subject in question - pretty much the definition of boilerplate responses. Your evaluation of the sources is nonsense. --Michig (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Nyles Lannon article and merge the album articles, as Michig suggests, as they aren't much more than stubs. Article did not have cites when AfD'd, but I've added twelve, which I think demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nyles Lannon and merge the album articles there. The NL article now has plenty of refs to establish notability - good work guys! — sparklism hey! 11:30, 10 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nyles_Lannon&oldid=1069064453"