Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Stauber

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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack Stauber

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Jack Stauber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable, and is promotional. The article promotes the artist, and links to his website. Two interviews are provides as the references, https://pittnews.com/article/126935/silhouettes-2017/jack-stauber/ and https://newretrowave.com/2018/07/20/an-interview-with-jack-stauber/ These are both blatantly non-independent of the subject and thus do not contribute evidence of Wikipedia-notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC, local coverage in the form of WP:INTERVIEW rather shy of WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment there are a few good sources available in Google news.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

There are gnews hits. The list from the top begins:

1. https://www.eriereader.com/article/jack-stauber-hilo A contributor review of an album. Not a reliable source.
2. https://www.eriereader.com/article/jack-stauber--pop-food As above, same contributor different album
3. https://lmcexperience.com/features/2018/09/13/pop-food-delivers-on-90s-nostalgia/ REviews 3 re-released albums. Student newspaper, not reliable enough.
4. https://www.eriereader.com/article/jack-stauber-to-release-third-solo-album-hilo-at-basement-transmissions Event advertising. $8 entry, see Facebook for details.
5. https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/jack-stauber-releases-absurdist-pop-record-hilo/Content?oid=7956275 Local paper album review, promotional tone, not a critical review. Close.
6. https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/new-releases/Content?oid=2584225 As above, differnt album
7. https://pittnews.com/article/128801/arts-and-entertainment/zaki-defies-genre-in-debut-of-self-titled-album/ Some mentions, close.
8. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/biggest-tiktok-2018-trends-memes Barely a mention
9. https://www.readdork.com/news/spish-we-like-jesus-video Promotional interview
10. https://coyotechronicle.net/hundreds-children-making-videos-about-abuse-on-youtube/ A mention

I'm not sure these are good enough, although I am wanting to listen to some. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete User SmokeyJoe (talk) did as good of a source review above as one could ask for. Feeble coverage equates to verifying existence, not encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Local artist with only local coverage. Fails WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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.