Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goest Ryder

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. Sandstein 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goest Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No coverage, no evidence this person meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep The article meets WP:GNG ond WP:NMUSIC with verifiable references included like PGH City Paper and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette .Christopher Odhiambo (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to actually read WP:GNG. Hyper local fluff pieces are worthless and don't establish anything. Praxidicae (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the Post-Gazette is very much not a "hyper local" paper and should probably count as one source favoring retention. On the other hand, the Pittsburgh City Paper would probably be acceptable for use as a reference in an article that otherwise met the notability bar, but I wouldn't weight it very heavily for determining whether a topic meets the GNG. Beyond that, I don't have a horse in this race. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's true, neither of the sources they refer to are useful regardless of where they come from. It's like the Forbes paradox. Sometimes it's a suitable source and other times it's total garbage written by random contributors or it's fluff. Praxidicae (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it shouldn't influence the outcome of this AfD, the original author and respondent above has been blocked indef for apparent promotional (and possibly COI) editing and a very combative approach to concerns expressed by other editors about it. Whether or not they appeal, they will probably remain unavailable for further comment for some time. General Ization ^Talk 02:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. General Ization ^Talk 20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the pertinent inclusion guidelines. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article seems to want to make a case for notabilty merely based on existence. The few potentially significant sources--local or otherwise--are run-of-the-mill human interest pieces about a person's attempt to rebuild life after getting out of prison, but there is otherwise no encyclopedic achievements of any kind. But, hey, wishing success to the guy for putting his drug/troubled past behind him. If he's destined to be a success in music (at least he's moving in the right direction signing to Cleopatra Records, although this claim is not reliably sourced) this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly written by an undisclosed COI editor who has been blocked. And Not notable. VViking_TalkEdits 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find a single strong RS (nevermind several) to support this. Britishfinance (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2019 (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.