Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Stefanidis

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 no consensus. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stefanidis[edit]

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

Article that does not meet the notability guideline for biographies. The article's only contributor is a single-purpose account with a possible conflict of interest. memphisto 10:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Either Paul Stefanidis or his mastering company (Viking Lounge Mastering) are mentioned in the articles of several notable musical productions: 1, 2, 3, 4, and the 2004 Summer Olympics opening ceremony page, which implies a certain degree of importance. Unfortunately, the only indepth coverage I was able to find is the Inner West Courier article referenced in our article. Ideally, I would like to see a second significant source to confer notability more clearly. Even so, I am inclined to lean "keep" given the important of his mastering contributions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Press coverage isn't detailed enough at the moment. Unless there are substantial Greek sources? --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article itself should definitely be worked on, seeing as how ridiculously limited it is, but the person does seem notable and so the article itself seems worthy of Wikipedia. LogicalCreator (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2012 (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.