Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Abelson (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Abelson

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

Non-notable dulcimer player who fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:CREATIVE, despite the fact that he is appearing in "coffee houses throughout the Mid-Atlantic region." The coverage is spotty and local, which is about what one would expect. Qworty (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudos to Matthew Abelson for his music work but he is not notable for Wikipedia yet. All of the relevant results Google News provided were event listings, nothing substantial. A search at clevescene.com provided two additional results here and here. I have absolutely no prejudice to a future article. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:Viriditas and user:Pigman in the 2007 Afd. The Steve 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The best arguments for keeping this article about one of the few notable hammered dulcimer musicians in America can be found in the original nomination, which resulted in a "keep" decision. Every vote was to Keep, and the original nomination was withdrawn. The only reason this has been brought up again is that it is part of a personal campaign by Qworty against me. Please don't be distracted; view the original nomination, and judge for yourself. [1]Rosencomet (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several musicians have played for the President and Vice President, but not all of them are probably notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What has changed since the previous decision to make this person non-notable? Folklore1 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per user:Viriditas and user:Pigman in the 2007 Afd. Additionally, this statement which is about what one would expect from the nominator, as well as others in similar AfDs, as well as in other articles, suggest there is no way in these nominations can be seen in the light of AGF this is one of many statements which call into question the good faith concept when viewing these deletion nominations. This article's subject was found notable before, and still is.--Vidkun (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous AFD. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:52, 21 November 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.