Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Raggett

:{{la|Ned Raggett}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ned_Raggett Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ned Raggett}})

This is a music journalist. He's published lots of reviews, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him personally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Raggett has written so much for so many publications (in the UK as well as the US) that any coverage of him will be difficult to find from a Google search among the multitude of works by him, but I found several Google Books results where his work is cited. I think he's sufficiently influential to be included. --Michig (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete unless we have reliable sources that cover the subject in detail we delete the article. Handwaving and claiming such sources cannot be found because they are drowned in too much of a sea of sources does not avoid the problem that such sources have not been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NEXIST. Though the presen sources may be inadequate but absence of many sources is not reason for deletion. This person is one of the most contributors of Music reviews, publishing thousands of them in various media since 1980s. His reviews are also well cited in many academic works.  — Ammarpad (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• This sounds kind of like WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Where are these sources to show notability? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Well, thanks you say "kind of like". Nonetheless WP:MUSTBESOURCES is an essay while what I posted above is a guideline. I too noted that the souces present in the article might be inadequate but given his achievement he certainly passes WP:GNG. And that is the essence of WP:NPOSSIBLE guideline for people like this but no willing editor to mine the sources, since people generally focus on what interest them. Deletion is not cleanup here {{Refimprove}} can take care of this.  — Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, prolific and probably good at their job, but being published often is not the same as being the subject of published works. There's a bit of handwaving that says that the sources should exist, but nobody has actually managed to present any. If sources are found later, then the article can be recreated easily enough. For now, fails WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC).

{{clear}}

: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.