Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jubal Fulks


 * 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. The sourcing is extremely weak, and this is a BLP. No issue if an established editor believes they can improve it in draftspace. Star  Mississippi  00:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Jubal Fulks

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO.  scope_creep Talk  17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very mild keep I get two hits in GScholar, one showing he presented at a conference and another where he helped the author of a paper select the music to analyze. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slim to non-existant I'd say.    scope_creep Talk  10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep reliable sources continue to be added (e.g., recent interview with the Colorado Public Radio, newspaper feature in 1998, etc.), added the violinist-stub to get help improving the article (a good alternative to deletion), numerous connections and references throughout Wiki, online databases and published dissertations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict2021 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a WP:BLP. Interviews are generally primary unless it is a article about a model. They fail WP:BLPPRIMARY. Lets look at the first block of 10 references:
 * Ref 1: That is non-RS. It is a event listing.
 * Ref 2: Another event listing. It is non-RS.
 * Ref 3: Meet the performs. It is a passing mention at best,  for a performance listing.
 * Ref 4: Another event listing. A passing mention. Non-RS.
 * Ref 5: An annoucement of a concert. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * Ref 6: Press-release. Non-RS.
 * Ref 7: Another annoucement. Press-release.
 * Ref 8: Another scheduled annoucement.

Not a single reference in that first block, prove that he is notable with WP:SECONDARY source. The following was added after I created the Afd.
 * Looks like a review but is an affiliate article.
 * This is an event schedule.
 * Describes another violinst Edward Hardy being taught by Fulks. It is a passing mention at best in two small paragraphs.

The rest is scheduling events refs, dodgy links like IMDB and discogs. It is utterly absurd the amount of work that has went into creating an article with 27 references that is a BLP with one review, to state its a strong keep. A single review is insufficient for a BLP. An it is likely non-RS as its a free magazine and look fringe. scope_creep Talk  14:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC) *Strong Keep
 * Comment After a 2-minute Google search, I found another review and a non-dodgy music source by Classical Archives to add to this article. scope_creep's claim only proves this article is an excellent addition to the Wikipedia community and supports the claim of gathering help by adding more reliable sources about (Nathan) Jubal Fulks (i.e., violinist-stub). I'm not sure if a person/ page who has entries on WorldCat, Virtual International Authority File, and the United States Library of Congress constitutes as Non-notable. Everyone is welcome to improve the order of sources or update its references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict2021 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have ready indicated at Strong Keep. You can't do it twice. If you have a review, post the url is the common method, so it can discussed. Entries on worldcat, via and entry in the congress don't cut it, on here. What does count is independent, secondary sources. Reviews count. If you have these, post them up, so they can be reviwed. Talking about sources, doesn't count. Evidence does thought. Please post it up.  scope_creep Talk  10:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I had to revert the article. Those two references you put were really low quality. One is a blog and one is a musical recording archive site, similar to discogs. Neither constitute a decent ref.  scope_creep Talk  18:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough to pass notability guidelines and I didn't find anything additional. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2022 (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.