Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Long

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. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Long

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. West Eddy (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 02:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Not considered an influential musician on his own, not part of numerous notable bands. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask the other discussants here to keep in mind that having an Allmusic bio is typically a very good indication of notability. And indeed, with some further investigation, Greg Long does easily meet WP:MUSICBIO; see my additions to the article. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for relisting: new sources were added towards the end of the listing. I feel that further discussion would be beneficial, specifically by the previous participants - if they all re-confirm their 'delete's, then that would be sufficient reason to consider this a 'delete' consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the following Wikipedia's music notibility guideline: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The article appears to have several independent sources discussing Greg Long, his band Avalon is definitely notable (three Grammy nominations), and iTunes sells 75 of Greg Long's songs. NJ Wine (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains references to independent, reliable coverage, as User:Paul Erik notes above. Also, the artist has released three albums on Myrrh Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group. Passes WP:MUSIC on at least point #1 and #5. — sparklism ^hey! 10:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets notability guidelines and several aspects of music guidelines. (#1, #2, #5). My76Strat (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2012 (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.