Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Dunn

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. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Dunn

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

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

Non-notable musician. Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Sources are either primary, databases or interviews. The best RS found in the article is this: [1]. The second best is this [2] but it is a review of the soundtrack of a non-notable film that goes on to praise the 3 contributors a bit, so I don't think it counts towards GNG. Found nothing else online. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll start by saying that producers do not usually get write-ups and so the music project should probably come up with specific critera for them (such as volume of work or awards) because we don't have anything other than WP:GNG to reply on. I was fully intending to say delete based on the article itself, but I did WP:BEFORE and was shocked to find that he had a bio at AllMusic, and it's longer than many bands who charted once and so are kept on Wikipedia: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/randall-dunn-mn0000402533/biography. There's also a write-up in a trade magazine: https://tapeop.com/interviews/114/bonus-randall-dunn/ and an interview elsewhere https://thecreativeindependent.com/people/musician-and-producer-randall-dunn-knowing-when-the-time-is-right/ > I stopped looking on Google's page 5, but the hits were getting low as there is a chartered accountant who appears and others, including a hymn writer: https://hymnary.org/person/Dunn_JR1 . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These refs are very poor for a BLP. One is a profile, one is a interview in a fringe magazine. There is some passing mentions on him, but not much else. Fails WP:SIGCOV and no indication fo passing WP:PRODUCER. scope_creep^Talk 23:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That "fringe magazine" is The Stranger (newspaper). It is hardly fringe, but is a highly notable alternative press which has been in circulation since 1991. It has a circulation of >60,000 and a website that draws 5 million visits per month. Gaff (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe new references were added since article was submitted to AfD? Seems like a notable producer in the "alternative music" scene, with a prolific catalog. Multiple interviews and articles cited from "alternative news" and "indie music" magazines/newspapers, like Seattle's The Stranger and others from different places, so not just a regionally important figure. Gaff (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has a substantial staff written bio in AllMusic and other coverage such as The Stranger and Pitchfork, and passing WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No demonstration of significant coverage nor any honorary or awards due to the subject's impact and contribution. Multi7001 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source analysis by Atlantic306. There's enough coverage here to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2021 (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.