Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Shaber


 * 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to for pointing this out. (non-admin closure)  SITH   (talk)   14:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sam Shaber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually.  SITH   (talk)   10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   SITH   (talk)   11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  11:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  11:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes, , , , , , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's interesting that the vast majority of the spate of prods didn't turn up reliable sigcov in my BEFORE searches on them, and considering this is the only one that you've actually shown the coverage you've found, I don't think I'm out of bounds in starting AfDs to request that you prove it. They were done in a short space of time but that's irrelevant because I did the proper searches en bloc which explains the dip in my activity just before the addition of the PROD tags.  The scale of something doesn't make it any less or more valid.    SITH   (talk)   11:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the "only one I've actually shown the coverage I've found" on, because it's the first of these AfDs I've commented on. If I had added all the sources available to all those articles when I deproded them, it would have taken me the best part of a week. I'm sure Google works the same for you as it does for me. --Michig (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , good thing AfDs run for a week then   SITH   (talk)   12:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as an obvious pass of WP:GNG and a clear failure of WP:BEFORE. Additionally, the nominator's tone above suggests a disrespect for the time and attention of AfD participants, which seems uncharacteristic but is nonetheless entirely unappreciated by this AfD participant. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, one of about 25 afds submitted by nominator in 10mins, most appear to be a waste of time for afd editors, thank goodness there are editors like who have actually spent the time looking for, and finding, references, suggest that in the future if nominator has a concern about these sort of articles they can tag them, leave messages on relevant projects (i note that they did notify the article creator of a lot of these, doesnt really work as creator hasn't been active on WP for around 7 years!). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I also find significant, independent coverage in newspapers, including from New Jersey, Indiana , , New York . RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2019 (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.