Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Doval (2nd nomination)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Doval

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

This singer-songwriter does not meet notability criteria for WP:MUSICBIO, as he has not received coverage in recent news media Marvellous Spider-Man 05:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry fulfills at least a couple criteria of WP:MUSBIO. Doval meets MUSBIO#2 & MUSBIO#11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pester123 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The page meets criteria of WP:MUSBIO - charted artist. [[1]][[2]][[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanesF23 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject has not released anything on a major label or chart on a notable musical chart. A radio station chart does not count toward WP:MUSBIO.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary The FMQB Charts cull their material from commercial radio stations, and is a major notable chart. The AC40 chart is not an individual radio station chart as previously stated above but a major music industry commercial top-40 radio chart. Regardless, the subject has been placed in rotation nationally by major radio and thus meets requirement #11 on WP:MUSBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pester123 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All your edits here have been on this subject. I can safely say you have bias. And I should add what these sources really are: an interview (primary coverage), a website which takes directly from his own website, a blog, a local radio chart, and his own website. Hardly meets any standard whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should further note that the other vote here was from an account solely made to stack voting. That is not allowed and will be discredited.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little difference in accomplishment between now and the previous time this article was deleted. The particular chart referenced in the industry trade publication FMQB ("Friday Morning Quarterback") is not acknowledged within the industry as a MAJOR chart (check out the mix of traditional internationally known notable artists with little known, DIY up-and-coming artists) This artist’s absence from any other contemporaneous charts should be noted. And as pointed out, the keeps and comments are from multiple SP edits. This artists existence is mostly social media/you tube/music download sites, etc., and references are self generated or with online publications that solicit self promotion. Existence does not equal notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2016 (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.