Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Mail (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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Mail

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

2nd nomination, not sure how it survived the first time. Unremarkable musician, referencing mainly his own website. Per this article being up, surely some minor bands I know should have articles too (and I'm sure they'd love to, just like this guy, who links to his own Wikipedia on his own website). See previous nomination -- bydand•talk 08:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a list of reviews here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As noted in the first AfD, he does seem to have received substantive coverage in Australian music media. The list on his website isn't particularly extensive or complete. Here is a 2013 review in The Australian [1]. Some other recent examples of apparently substantive coverage, both positive and negative: [2][3][4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a badly made article, that needs some rewriting with proper formatting, particularly for references. It has some highly misleading labels of "references", such as the "Rolling Stones" item, which is actually nothing of note. But, I see some substantial coverage from independent sources.[5][6]. So, it clearly meets WP:GNG. --Rob (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage in The Australian, AU Review, performance on ABC Australia, etc. is sufficient I think. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 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 12:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Had this been a first AFD I'd of voted to Keep & Improve but it's had 5 years to improve & IMHO its barely improved at all!, How it survived the last AFD is beyond me!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: AfD is not cleanup and bad shape of an article should not be a reason for deletion in most cases. See also WP:NOEFFORT. Is the page so bad that it is harmful in its current state? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware it's for CLEANUP, It's had 5 years for someone to CLEANITUP ... and no one has, I'm not saying it's harmful- I'm saying it's not to Wikipedia standards.

So, now Wikipedia:Notability. Did you check the sources listed above? [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vejvančický - I haden't bothered reading the keeps since I assumed they were all per WP:SOMEPOLICY, But since I was wrong and that there are plenty of cites to back up his notability I say Keep as notable musician. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I never heard of many of the Australian sources cited here, but upon review they look plenty reliable. The article is a bit of a mess, but the subject is notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 27 May 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.