Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Bernson


 * 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Jon Bernson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is some sourcing here, but despite that, most of the sources are not to reliable sources, and there isn't much here which really explains what makes him notable. Corvus cornix talk  07:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added some references and formatted some others. Several references are to SFgate.com, the web site of the San Francisco Chronicle, a daily newspaper. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. Also covered by SFWeekly, but in terms of reliable sources we only have a handful of local newspaper articles.--Michig (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC) See comment below - enough coverage identified now for an article.--Michig (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references and formatted others. Several references are to Internet Movie Database, the motion picture industry standard for documenting soundtrack contributions and Allmusic, the music industry standard for documenting musical albums.--Miriam Ashby (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither imdb nor allmusic is a reliable source.  Corvus cornix  talk  18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Allmusic is a reliable source for its bios, reviews, and chart positions (which are sourced from Billboard). Since Jon Bernson appears to be, to all intents and purposes, Ray's Vast Basement, the bio and review there constitute signficant coverage in a reliable source. Added to the other coverage, I think that's sufficient.--Michig (talk) 20:15, 31 January 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.