Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Malone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. slakrtalk / 04:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Malone (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)

Do not believe the accomplishments of the subject of this BLP meet the requirements of MUSICBIO and the available coverage does not meet GNG. J04n(talk page) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the first is a legit review but the other 3 don't come close to establishing notability. Not convinced this is a notable musician based on a single review of one of his releases. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it passing GNG. All of these above sources are reliable, but the last two aren't exclusively written about the subject and aren't significant and the second one is trivial. Harsh (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2014 (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.