Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Barrott


 * 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Barrott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Two of the references Chubbles added when they de-prodded the article don't even mention Barrot; the blurb on AllMusic is the only one that provides any detail at all. That's not enough to write an encyclopedia article about Barrott. Huon (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and Move to Future Loop Foundation. I don't know why the article is located at this title; the musician is better known by his DJ handle than his real name. I believe the nominator's confusion over the lack of coverage is due to there being comparatively little available in musical sources under the name "Mark Barrott". (Also, this is not a shared account, for the record.) Chubbles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough indepth sources to justify keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The article now includes an Allmusic bio and an Exclaim! review (both international press), as well as two reviews from UK outlets, and a Pitchfork Media longform about Ibiza music which includes an entire section about Barrott. This, particularly with the last one, ordinarily would hurdle the sourcing/exposure requirements for bands, based on past precedent. The musician meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources now included in the article show that Barrott meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. I also agree that the proper title for the article should be Future Loop Foundation, per WP:UCRN. — sparklism hey! 06:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  14:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO (those who say it passes should add which numbered section applies here), only trivial mentions, and reviews in music fanzines and promotional outlets. One mention in Allmusic does not make notability. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It passes bullet 1. Sites like Exclaim!, The Skinny, and MusicOMH are not fanzines nor promotional outlets; they're third-party, independent music review sites. Furthermore, he's afforded several paragraphs in the Pitchfork Media article, which is, at this point, the premiere American indie-rock publisher. This !vote seems to discount a lot of what's present in the current version. Chubbles (talk) 17:36, 9 July 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.