Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Mehran

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: Non-admin closure; Significant improvements to the article since nomination and clear consensus.--1l2l3k (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

Sam Mehran[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)

Redirect to Test Icicles. Found not notable in 2016 by @GiantSnowman:, who redirected it, I still don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC 1l2l3k (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Easily fulfills WP:BASIC with (currently) 6 9 reliable sources about the subject (several more could be added). The article was only redirected in 2016 because the sources back then were just YouTube URLs. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint: All the sources that you just added are WP:PRIMARY (related to his death) and do not satisfy notability as per the second bullet of WP:BASIC.--1l2l3k (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? Pitchfork, Dazed Digital, The Fader, or Clash Magazine aren't primary sources. They're a secondary source reporting his death.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint:Yes, they are primary. They are reporting the death event and did so, because what happened (death). As defined, they are original materials that are close to an event, so they are primary. A secondary source is different, and, as defined in policy, it provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. A research for real secondary sources on this individual will be worth your time, if you need the article to be saved.--1l2l3k (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case there's still 3 (now 4) sources that cover the subject beyond his passing or his work with Test Icicles.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1l2l3k: That is nonsense, an obituary is a secondary source. The reporters very obviously were not eyewitnesses of the death. They must have got their information from someone else, who is the real primary source. Moreover many of the obituaries in GNews are retrospective and deal with events in his life that took place years ago. Also not primary. James500 (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Test Icicles. Little individual coverage before his death and none of his albums have articles. His passing is the basis of five of the six citations in the article that has remained a stub since its creation a decade ago, and death does not automatically establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 of the 9 sources (so far) cover the subject's body of work, which should be enough. At this point, Mehran appears more notable than Test Icicles itself--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a draft article about his album Flamingo Breeze. The articles aren't just "Sam Mehran found dead" notices, they also cover his career, which makes "death does not automatically establish notability" a moot argument. Moreover, there are 6 citations written before his passing. RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage (including obituaries) in GNews. James500 (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:ANYBIO with current sources Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really didn't appreciate that a sock closed this AFD. Poor style. I undid their action. Philafrenzy is right that AFDs should be closed only by admins, unless the nominator withdraws. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the pre death sources are not that strong but he seems to scrape by on a GNG ticket if you add the obits. Just a quick reminder for User:1l2l3k Afd can be closed by non admins as per WP:NAC under certain circumstances and not just withdrawal. I believe that you were right to revert the closure as WP:VANDALISM but not because it was the work of a sock or that he wasn't an admin. As far as I know there isn't any policy or guideline that allows us to revert a sock's edits just because they are socks, there are essays that deal with this though. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:31, 26 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.