- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Howell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails notability guidelines Canyouhearmenow 05:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--
- (Notability: Musician) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (Tarantic Records- 39 published albums, founded 1998)
- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (Theme for Life Love and Health (Currently on Sirius/XM and formerly on NPR))
- (Notability: Web content) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster (TWiT Network and CBS Interactive)
There was a large rabble about this before (back in 2007, I think), and I ended up abandoning the argument because of a persnickety admin, and don't really know about what came of the argument. Tcardone05 (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search leads mainly back to his own pages. The article itself is nothing more than a mere promotional page. If the article for some reason should be deemed notable which I still cannot see how it could, it would certainly have to be rewritten to remove the promotional aspects to make it encyclopedic.--Canyouhearmenow 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, however, I would be OK with a redirect to TWiT.tv. The subject does not appear to pass the aforementioned guidelines. Location (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The music career alone is a reason to keep the article.MLBudToo (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.42 (talk) [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) 23:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because the editorial input clearly displays a lack of understanding of WP:NOT; for instance, birthdates and full names of living WP:KIDS are a very very bad idea (I'm deleting that sentence now). There are so many WP:SPS that the remaining ones are probably so also (CNET, SFSU). And there goes your article. If someone cared to stub it to WP:RS only and continue to claim notability by some policy criterion after that point, that might get my !vote discounted a little. JJB 00:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- The music aspect is not notable enough to keep the article either. Doing a search on the musical inclusions all relate back to the subjects own websites or articles the subject created. I stand by my original delete nomination. --Canyouhearmenow 03:01, 23 October 2010 (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.