Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Leven Pollock


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Gail Leven Pollock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable composer and educator. Fails WP:MUSIC - searched for third party sources as the current ones are mostly WP:PRIMARY or not working. No interviews or reviews that indicate notability. Much of the page hinges on the write up of her university page. Karst (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable body of work. Performs internationally as a musician. Writes and composes for advertising. Wikipedia needs more articles on prominent women. If deletion proceeds, I recommend merging the article with Macon State College. Pkeets (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This vote/special pleading appears to be an admission that subject does not meet any actual standard for inclusion. You say "Wikipedia needs more articles on prominent women", yet you avoid providing or pointing to any evidence that subject is such a person. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't find a single, independent third party voice that indicates any sort of publicly recognized notable achievement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm finding enough to make them notable. FYI - Found more when searching w/o the middle name! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 03:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please share your findings. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? You've obviously already made up your mind!!! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 05:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because if other voters and AfD closer see that you have made wholly unsubstantiated claims, have been questioned on the point, and still decline to back up your claims, they may discount your vote. If, on the other hand, there is substantial coverage of the subject from independent, reliable sources, then the article should be kept, and I would change my vote accordingly. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep votes are always discounted, meanwhile delete votes need only say per nom! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the environment here. One can't be expected to assume good faith after an editor's already voted. It then just dissolves into the backfire effect which I've already been through. All of my user boxes are credited to an extremely horrible experience on AfD. So I now only hope is to attempt to lessen that terrible experience that I faced here on AfD for other editors. Unfortunately, most of my efforts have little to zero effect due to the pervasive and accepted level of bullying done on Wikipedia. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 17:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Fails any standard of notability. None provided, none to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried searching news, newspapers, books (I get 3 hits amazon music scores), scholar, jstor, worldcat (4 musical scores). I also tried subscription sites newspapers.com, newspaperarchives.com and find nothing save a few wedding notices. Tried under Leven and Pollock, as well as Austrian and Italian newspapers because her profile at Mercer here indicates she played there. No adequate sourcing to verify GNG, which is the only standard that is required. (Note, Gail Pollock without a middle name does generate hits, but everything I found is for the Gail Pollock who used to work at Monument Records and is the long time partner of rock n roll hall of famer Scotty Moore). She may be notable but there are insufficient RS on the web to confirm that she meets WP guidelines. SusunW (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now at best as the best I found were only a few links here and there at Books and browsers, hardly much especially for a better article. SwisterTwister   talk  20:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is not even a suggestion of notability here. As a composer/musician, her work does not seem to have generated much press (in that NYT article only a composition by her is mentioned--there is no coverage), and she fails PROF. I am not sure this should have been relisted: one "keep" is more a support for merge than anything else, and the other "keep" does not actually present an argument (all it says is "I found stuff but I won't tell you what it is and you're bullying me"). If SusunW pulls out all the stops (now that's due diligence) and can't find anything to prove notability, the subject is not (yet) notable. Drmies (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Passing mention in the NYT is about all we have here. After three weeks, no one has been able to drop any info here regarding how she could possible meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:32, 27 December 2015 (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.