Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton Faulkner

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newton Faulkner

Delete vanity page San Saba 19:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There is info about him (blogs), but nothing verifiable (no news stories I could find) --Macrowiz 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Nigelthefish 14:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The relevant criterion is WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Newton Faulkner performed at the SXSW Festival in Texas and several dates in New York, has had a 15 minute spot on a BBC Radio 2 program from the same event, has been broadcast nationwide (UK) on "The Musicians Channel".. this is not a vanity page, and certainly meets up to the criteria expressed in the link above.
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 03:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep not vanity it's a copyvio, which explains the unencyclopedic tone. Barely passes WP:MUSIC. Eivindt@c 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, in my opinion. No entry on Allmusic and only one EP listed (perfunctorily) on Amazon. dbtfztalk 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Gflores Talk 06:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Care to provide a reason? dbtfztalk 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dbtfz, also copyio. -- Arnzy (Talk) 10:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I de-POVed and I think I took care of the copyvio problem. I found some coverage of him via Nexis and cited the most prominant article. - Jaysus Chris 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Terence Ong 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no established notablity. Newyorktimescrossword 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Jay(Reply) 23:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I would say, considering the EP listed on Amazon is released today, it's worth keeping the entry in case it takes off. If it doesn't, then it could be deemed vanity. 06:05am, March 27th 2006—This unsigned comment was added by 212.159.115.16 (talk • contribs) .
    • That's a new one--and a good one. We ought to keep the article just in case the subject becomes notable? Ah, that's classic.  :-) dbtfztalk 05:10, 27 March 2006 (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.