Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Manchin

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Manchin[edit]

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

See WP:JUNK Ethanlu121 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable with some non-arranged links.--Yufitran (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't the first time I've seen an Afd from this editor with all-of-one-word link to the essay WP:JUNK. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. As for this "non-arranged link" argument, we don't delete articles because of style issues. There are some minor Billboard reviews, with this one being the largest. Canadian music weekly Exclaim! has this capsule review. Yes, a cogent argument could be made that Manchin fails to meet our guidelines. I just wish the nominator could be bothered to make one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Manchin is a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Per nom." Boy, so much thought put into both! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's claim to notability is to be one of half a million members of ASCAP. That's about as run of the mill as you can get. The Billboard article references the fact that he is "unsigned" and "regional", meaning the subject is up and coming. The 2002 Exclaim review is quite short. Just to be sure, I found a few sources that show some notability. However, even if he were notable, this stub is a huge mess. If somebody wants to rescue this, please do so soon. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I share Shawn in Montreal's opprobrium for such poorly formatted and uninformative nomination statements — WP:JUNK is not a deletion rationale in and of itself, because "junk" articles can be repaired and kept if proper sourcing and a legitimate notability claim exist to salvage them with. I'll grant that this is not a good or well-formatted article as written, but that's got nothing to do with its keepability or lack thereof — what is determinative here, rather, is that there isn't enough quality sourcing, or a substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, to fix it with. Capsule reviews in Billboard and Exclaim! are a start, but they don't singlehandedly get him to the finish line and I'm not finding anything else that does. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (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.