Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mic Crenshaw

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. Sandstein 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Crenshaw

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mic Crenshaw's contributions to local, national, and international contributions to musical platforms have been documented by a variety of journalists and scholars. Please see additional sources and information added to the Mic Crenshaw page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NellaDovenge (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say it meets WP:MUSICBIO, as it meets criterion 1 due to at least 2 'independent', 'not self-published' and I would consider 'reliable'. I would say that it meets 'reliable' as the newspapers have wikipedia articles about them and it does not mention they are un-reliable. I would say that they however are not subject to the first exception, even though both of citations I chose were 'Q and A' newspaper articles, as I could see no evidence of endorsement or advertising in them. I would also say that the other citations might meet the requirements for the first criterion.

However I would still say the line between this meeting or not meeting WP:MUSICBIO is thin and so this article would need improving before it could be considered 'good enough' and improvment in tone to meet WP:NOTFACEBOOK and WP:NOTLINKEDIN is needed. Wpgbrown (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NM for this article boils down to this question: "Are Oregon Artswatch, The Portland Mercury, and Willamette Week sufficiently reliable to counterbalance the total lack of articles from mainstream media. I lean to "delete." Tapered (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2018 (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.