Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Semonik

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 merge to Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Semonik

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

He made a few recordings, and got a couple of mentions in a couple of local newspapers and on a few websites of little significance. There is o real evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly Merge): Doesn't seem to be much on him. Mostly local: [1], [2]; plus a couple of bloggish interviews: [3], [4]. His AllMusic page does not look good: [5]. Also, I'm not sure that someone's medical history confers any notability. I'm not in favor of one-sentence stubs and am leaning towards delete unless the article is expanded or unless cogent arguments are made to retain it. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC); edited 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: Changed to Delete -- coverage is still local news and bloggish sites. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current state of the article should have any bearing on whether it should be deleted, as long as sufficient sources exist to establish notability. I think policy agrees on that point. There are plenty of very short stubs on notable topics. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short, yes; one-sentence, no. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was prodded (incorrectly) as a fan page, correctly deprodded by Torchiest (who should have an interest in saving this, I think, as should David Gerard), reprodded by JBW, and re-deprodded by good old Floquenbeam whom I'm pinging here to say "hey, we miss you". There's a bit of banter at User_talk:Drmies#Proposed_deletion_of_Jim_Semonik, and I'll repeat that I have no real stake in this game. I think that a few newspaper articles don't make for notability. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence. The article was created after that article's AFD, and all this should be there - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This begs the question of whether that article should exist (yes, I see that it has survived AfDs, but I don't personally believe it passes NALBUM). Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I listed five sources in this AFD that I think establish notability. I would also be fine with merging this back into the album article per David, and following through on what we discussed at that AFD. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence. The main notability stems from that album, so a single article covering both the album and artist should suffice. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2015 (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.