Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulie Stewart

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Stewart[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)

None of the sources are independent of the subject, so this fails the general and music bio-specific notability policies. Draftification was denied, though that is my preferred outcome. Barring that, deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG. The 3 of the 4 sources appear to be independent of the subject as they are book reviews published by reliable sources. (SMH, The Age, & The Guardian). Further, there are other sources not included in the article that establish notability. (The ABC, Herald Sun, The Guardian, Google Search). I also think the article is ready enough for mainspace, yes there is work to be done, but that can be done in mainspace. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the currently used sources are WP:IS per WP:MUSICBIO. This should not have been moved out of draft without adequate sources in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of what WP:MUSICBIO says, the sources still establish notability through WP:GNG. The context of the sources are a bit out of the scope of WP:MUSICBIO considering they are a reviews of a book. Nevertheless, I cannot see where it says in WP:MUSICBIO that none of the currently used sources are WP:IS. Not to mention, there are other sources that establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MUSICBIO: (emphasis mine)
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.

UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a independent review of a book written by a journalist, not a publication where the musician ... talks about themselves. The subject isn't the author of these article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under his full name, he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in January 2020 (ref now in article). I agree with GMH Melbourne he is notable enough to have an article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per GMH Melbourne, article cites over five reliable sources with SIGCOV and all, she has been a subject of multiple independent sources. To be honest, I don't know how this article made it here. dxneo (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to above keep comments the subject, contrary to noms claim, verifiably satisfies the music bio-specific notability policy number 6 as a prominent member of two notable bands. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per GMH Melbourne.satisfies WP:GNG. Fudyrelu (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2024 (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.