Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowell Bekker


 * 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. Consensus is that this person does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Just having been played on several radio stations associated with the performer, even if in multiple markets, is not sufficient to meet WP:BAND. The closest criterion is probably #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, and consensus is that this person has not been placed in rotation by any major (emphasis added) radio network. Rlendog (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Lowell Bekker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

16-yearold musician who has only self-published his music. No reliable sources can be found. No reliable sources in the article except to say his song was played 22 times on-air. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

CommentRadio station websites are included as reliable sources. For an article to be valid on Wikipedia, any artist who has received national airplay on mainstream radios is considered eligible, proved with the resourced. Bekker Records does not constitute self-publishing. --Beastphones (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Beastphones (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Being played on-air 22 times by the local radio station isn't exactly national airplay. There are several radios stations listed, but they are owned by the same company,  that uses the same website and the same database of artists.... Hehe, being played on the talk, country and classics sister-stations would be a coup.  Bekker Records only artist is Lowell Bekker and is owned by him, that is self-publishing. Bgwhite (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't just local radio stations, even if they are all the same company that owns them. Bekker Records is owned by Natasha Bekker, with artists such as Jac Harper and others. I suggest to do your own research before concluding. --Beastphones (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Beastphones (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * From all the radio links list in the article, "He is currently signed to co-founded Bekker Records".  He is self-published to an independent record label.  Bgwhite (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * CO-founded. Not owned. There's enough national airplay to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, you have no case. ;) --Beastphones (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Beastphones (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What other markets did it play in, and how can we verify that?  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   03:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The power of google! I kid. There are several markets that the single has played in, such as New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami (etc.) Even though, as discussed earlier, they're all owned by the same company, they all are eligible as national airplay. They're on each radio station website, which could be considered a valid source because they are not editable by the public nor the artist. They also are not social networking sites or other useless content. --Beastphones (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Beastphones (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per nom.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   03:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? --Beastphones (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Beastphones (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "per nomination" -- it means that he accepts the reasoning of the person who nominated the article for deletion. Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the nominator's rationale for nominating the article for deletion.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   03:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. This article complies with Wikipedia's rules for musician biographies. Bekker has received NATIONAL airplay. It's not just because he's important, but I believe this article should stay, because there is nothing wrong with it. Sure, it should be expanded over time with more sources, but it shouldn't be deleted immediately. WP:BAND "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." This clearly states he is eligible for an article. --Beastphones (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Beastphones (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable "musician", no credible sources to prove notability. The article itself appears to be self-promotional. Keb25 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SOURCES ARE CREDIBLE. Does anyone listen? Why can't we just give the article some time to expand, instead of deleting it? Why don't you focus your energy on searching for more sources and expanding the article? I don't get it. --Beastphones (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Beastphones: Sources are reliable and it does comply with WP:BAND. I think we should stay with the article in question for a certain period of time after which, if no changes are made (or there is nothing else significant to add), it should be considered for incubation or deletion. StephenG (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So...if someone labels me as spam, when I just started using Wikipedia...and if I do the same to someone else, it's considered vandalism? Instead of stalking my page, why don't we discuss this maturely instead of these warnings? And don't you dare label this as 'vandalism', because that's just not right. --Beastphones (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also replied on your talk page which is where the past warnings have gone. Nobody has ever labeled anything you have written as Spam.  A tag has been placed behind your name that is called SPA - Single Purpose Account.  Please read WP:SPA.  When you delete tags from the article, this page and label other editors SPA who have thousands of edits, that is vandalism.  Bgwhite (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I replied on my page. --Beastphones (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 15 September 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.