Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chadbourne

:{{la|Mark Chadbourne}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Mark Chadbourne}})

Unreferenced biography. The article weakly claims significance, so I declined an A7 speedy. However, I'm not finding any reliable sources to verify the information in the article, and notability is weak at best. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 18:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. This is an autobiography that doesn't include any reliable third party sources that can assert the subject's notability. Dragquennom (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep User:PeteMcGinity I disagreewith the assessment that the article is 'weak at best'. And I've noticed there has been significant deletions to this article recently including the discographies of the artist, and for which I do not see any editors' reasoning for doing so listed in the history of this article. A considerable amount of verifiable information is available in published newspapers, magazines, books and other artist websites referencing Mr. Chadbourne's works and contributions as a musician, writer and discographer (Rome Daily Sentinel, the Houghton Mileau, Scene Magazine, Cleveland Magazine, the book "Bubblegum is the Naked Truth", and other books) which editors could add in instances where needed to improve the article. However, Wikipedia's definition of "verifiable" clearly states that "The word "source" also includes "the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)". The main hub of the entry has been verified with the proper licensing; I see nothing that "might damage the reputation of living people" (in this case, Mr. Chadbourne) and most of the sources listed are third party, including commercial online media sources such as Soundclick, the MyTV network, LastFM, Sizzle Radio) etc. One must consider that independent artists often use alternative media and will not grant license to mainstream media - whether it is hard copy or internet sourced precisely to remain "alternative and independent". That should not disqualify any article for inclusion simply because a google search doesn't produce immediate results. The article could use some up-dating, but is not in my opinion, irrelevant or insignificant. I noticed that Mr Chadbourne has a best selling single and album on Soundclick just doing a quick search on the site's main page which includes world wide sales. There is an independent article on Soundclick which demonstrates that this is a valid source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete McGinty (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — Pete McGinty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: If "a considerable amount" of verifiable information is available in reliable sources such as those, why not add them to the article? Furthermore, although self-published sources can be used to verify information, they cannot be used to establish notability. I'm glad they exist to verify, but what is there to show that Mark Chadbourne is notable? You've added three links to the article: one self-published, one written by a friend of his, and one potentially reliable and independent source. However, the reliable source shows chart listings for the song on what appears to be a relatively small TV station. Having #1 songs on that chart alone does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Claims for notability in the article are problematic. For example, chart claims appear to be based on Soundclick which isn't a recognized chart. And other claims like "His fixed harpsichord sonata "Area Sets" was lauded as a breakthrough composition by critics around the country." cannot be verfied as I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22Mark+Chadbourne%22+%22Area+Sets%22&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&safe=on&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw#q=%22Mark+Chadbourne%22+%22Area+Sets%22&hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnso&ei=QRDATdv2GO6D0QGDy92XBQ&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=282d9d5433c41066 cannot find] any actual critical reception for it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - this guy is clearly not notable, based on the lack of reliable sources about him, but there is a offtrack biker with the same name who might be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (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.