Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Nickatina (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 Keep. Seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Malinaccier (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Nickatina

Andre Nickatina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Still fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable underground rapper. Last AFD was "speedy delete". Minor local coverage from "SF Weekly" and "Metroactive", not a reliable source -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as article creator. I defend my decision under criterion #1 of the WP:MUSIC page that states that the musician must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". SF Weekly and Metro Silicon Valley do qualify as reliable sources because they both contain extensive editorial overview boards and are not self-published. As far as the depth of coverage goes, Nickatina was given a full article about him on SF Weekly back in 2003, and there are also some published reviews in SF Weekly and Metro Silicon Valley about a few of his albums. I think those sources should be enough to qualify as "multiple" works. What makes those local publications un-reliable though? I provided links to the Nickatina sources to the user who "salted" the Nickatina titled, User:David Eppstein, and he unsalted in approval.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The sources in the article seem to meet WP:RS, such as the SF Weekly link and the All Music Guide profile (whose link I fixed). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment AMG also reviewed one of the albums, as seen here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:MUSIC says it's notable if it has been covered in non-trivial third-party reliable sources, which this article has. Soxred 93 04:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The coverage in SF Weekly and Metro appears to pass WP:MUSIC#1. The version I speedy deleted was much more minimal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient media coverage to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Ford MF (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if they aren't necessarily the largest of publications, those two definitely appear to be non-trivial sources independent of the subject, hence satisfying WP:MUSIC.~ mazca ^talk 10:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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.