Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Minoff

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. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Minoff

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

Procedural nom. Article was prodded, endorsed and de-prodded so let's get a consensus. Original prod concern was "Unsourced bio since november 2006. Probably not notable. Don't remove this prod without sourcing the article." edit summary for de-prod was "deprod - as a member of several notable bands he may well satisfy WP:MUSIC". HJMitchell You rang? 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from prodder I requested sources in my prod. Sources were added. The prod was removed. I have no complaints. Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a member of several notable bands who has received some coverage I see no problem keeping a short article about him. He is a reasonable search term for the bands he has been a member of if nothing else.--Michig (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect him to the band. But be careful with that, because a couple of the bands he has been with might be in AfD soon. Per WP:MUSICBIO"Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Of course if one of those "notable" bands gets deleted, he loses that loophole. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to which band? If he had only been in one I would agree, but he is a valid search term for 3 bands.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pick one that he is most associated with. Which one is most successful? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable sources are there, so what's the problem? Clearly the article could be improved upon a great deal, but there's definitely room for expansion. Whether or not that expansion ever happens remains to be seen, but deleting the article would negate that possibility altogether. Drewcifer (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to one of the bands. Did you actually read the sources? Yes, the Guardian is a reliable source. No, being interviewed about the band doesn't really make him notable as an individual. Yes, Rolling Stone is a reliable source. No, a single sentence mention of him (as a band member) in a one paragraph article is not significant coverage. Again, Boston Globe, reliable source. Again, an interview about the bands doesn't give him individual notability. Those sources strengthen notability for the bands, but not for him as an individual. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources verify the details in the article - that is why I added them.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do you agree that having details correct and establishing notability aren't necessarily the same thing? If a guy who played the role of "waiter" in a notable movie gets interviewed by a reliable source and confirm details about some notable actor, we can use that about the notable actor, but it doesn't make "waiter" notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, they're not the same thing. We wouldn't keep 'guy who played waiter' as a redirect to the film he played waiter in, but we do quite rightly keep members of notable bands as redirects without a requirement for the 'subject' of the redirect to be individually notable. I don't really see how a stub that simply states who this guy is and links to the bands that he has been in is any worse than having a redirect to a single band. In fact, I don't see how redirecting this to one of his 3 bands would be an improvement on that.--Michig (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You convinced me. Thanks. A redirect won't help. Since the man isn't the subject of any of the sources used and all he does in them is talk about the band, I don't feel they establish his notability. He may be a member of notable bands and can be listed in those articles. But as an individual, he doesn't pass notability. Since my attempt to compromise got beat down, nothing left to do but change the !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not very helpful. You're opinion wasn't beat down, it was challenged. You know, as in a discussion. If you can't handle that then don't provide your opinion in the first place. I think Michig has some valid points, as do you, so let's keep this constructive, yes? Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to. I said pick the most successful of the bands. He says it's not useful and that a redirect is worse than leaving an article about a guy who hasn't achieved notability on his own. That's a pretty solid rejection of the idea. Saying that a redirect is worse than just leaving it as is doesn't leave much room for further discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Drew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails music, bio, etc... no multiple non-trivial mentions exist in reliable soruces to allow for the cosntruction of a proper encyclopedic biography.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of at least 2 notable bands, Weird War and Extra Golden; as has been noted above, WP:MUSICBIO states Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. Once properly referenced, neither of those articles should be deleted here. The Guardian and Boston Globe articles need to be added to Ex. Gold, and the Washington Post has coverage [1] of Weird War that can be added as well. One more short, but relevant item from WaPo talking to Minoff about "his favorite things in town this week". Wine Guy Talk 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep member of multiple notablebands is good enough for wp:music, a single redirect to one of the bands (how to pick) is less useful than a stub. any unsourced info, rubbish, cruft can be removed leaving an appropriatly sourced article. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:MUSIC, redirecting a musician to a band they are in is proper if membership in that one band is their sole claim to fame, but not if they are a member of mutliple notable bands. — Gwalla | Talk 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How notable is Weird War? I can't find any evidence they've charted in the US. Have they charted somewhere else? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is not the only criterion for WP:BAND (see 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Weird War released four albums with Drag City (record label), at least one of which (Illuminated by the Light) has been reviewed by the Washington Post. Wine Guy Talk 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding? Really? Gee, I guess that answers my question. Oh wait, that isn't what I asked, was it? WW isn't up for AfD, so talking about why they meet notability isn't really that productive. You entirely missed the point of the question. Then again, I shouldn't have even bothered trying. It's clear that nobody else even wants to discuss a redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked whether that band was notable, and you got an answer. Wine Guy pointed out that charting isn't necessarily relevant in this case. The notability of the bands this person has been involved with is pertinent, since the notability of this subject is premised on those bands being notable. Calm down and stay civil, please. You're taking this far too personally. — Gwalla | Talk 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one of the reasons that: "members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article", is so that we don't have to flip a coin, or have a potentially contentious discussion about which band is "more successful", to decide where a redirect should go. Wine Guy Talk 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I say this as someone who is STRONGLY in favor of deleting unsourced biographies. This one is no longer unsourced and appears to be notable enough. JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't seem totally clear-cut to me but google news shows some sustained coverage: [2]; most of it isn't incredibly detailed but it's also not totally superficial either. I also am convinced by Gwalla's argument that this person's notability doesn't hinge on a single band. See this search: [3] This is a page that has enough sourcing that if I wanted to delete it I would recommend a redirect rather than a delete, but not all the material would be able to be redirected into a single page; it seems to make sense to keep it here even if it isn't the biggest page. Cazort (talk) 20:46, 28 January 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.