Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Klassik (2nd nomination)

So Klassik

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/So Klassik
• Articles for deletion/So Klassik (2nd nomination)

So Klassik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

It is unclear what makes this person notable. The claims to notability that I can see include being the son of a notable person, working for a Grammy-nominated notable person, being influenced by notable persons, working for notable people, and being photographed with a notable person. Alas, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I declined a G4 CSD nom because I think the article is somewhat different from the one at the time the deletion discussion occurred, and because I am a little mystified at that deletion discussion's result. A second AfD seems the best way to go.  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• DON'T Delete This is silly that this article is up for deletion. This article does seem a bit dry, but an expanded info tag should be placed on it. It seem as if additions are still being added, but it currently meets the criteria for a wikipedia article. Good by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldfire (talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  "This is silly" is not a policy-based reason to keep an article. "Meets the criteria" is not a policy-based reason to keep an article either, unless you can point to the appropriate inclusion criteria you believe the subject meets. Can you provide a link to the WP:NOTABILITY criteria (or even just a single one) that So Klassik meets?  Frank  |  talk  17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  So Klassik is The Klassikz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.78.60 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  — 173.59.78.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. None of the sources verifies notability (they don't even mention "So Klassik" but "The Klassikz") and most are just blogs and not reliable sources. Most of the article reads like an attempt to claim notability by association. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not currently meet WP:music or WP:GNG. The author also has a Conflict of Issue as stated in his summary [1].- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• DON'T Delete Everyone in the industry knows who So Klassik is. Someone just needs to add to this article. Looks a bit bare to me. I'll do some research and update as needed when I can. Definitely a don't delete though. I believe he's won a couple of awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.35.63 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  — 76.99.35.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Which policy allows an article to remain because "everyone in the industry knows who <X> is"? Please provide a policy-based reason the article meets criteria for inclusion.  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Robert L. Gordon III. The subject fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. I agree that notability is not inherited, but I am OK with redirects in cases like these. Location (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• DON'T Delete As a representative of SPEMG, one of the 4 studios that S.K. works at, it is in our opinion that he is indeed noteworthy. There is a greater list of accomplishments than what is represented in this article. The question is, what needs to happen in order to settle this discussion? Does the article need to be re-written? Who should write it? His publicist had no part in this article. We are forwarding this to her. 71.242.255.56 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)SPEMG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.255.56 (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Independent reliable sources need to be provided which directly discuss him in significant detail. Press releases and passing mentions don't count. Getting a publicist involved is not recommended as a conflict of interest makes it hard to write a neutral and appropriate encyclopedia article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Give Article a Chance I'd like to move to give this article a chance while someone can properly take the time and fill it out. It's currently a shell that needs to be filled in. I'm quite sure there is plenty of material out there can can be sourced to fit the criteria of wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Give_an_article_a_chance