Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. McCorkle Jr.


 * 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. Certainly not notable per PROF, and the MUSIC references don't assert notability either ("has shared a stage with someone, worked with a producer who has produced notable artists, has guested with a red-link band which has a notable member") etc. Black Kite 11:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

William W. McCorkle Jr.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to be primarily autobiographical (history has a number of WP:NOTMYSPACE problems). I don't believe it meets WP:PROF: a handful of presentations, two published papers, no books, zero results on Google Scholar 1 2. I can't find evidence that subject meets any of the other WP:PROF criteria. The article lists a number of music contributions, which seem irrelevant to this discussion, but may wind up meeting WP:MUSIC. If so, it seems to me that the article should still be deleted and republished under the artist's stage name, not the artist's real name. Chuuumus (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a case of a personal vendetta here. The subject disagreed with Chuuumus on another discussion yesterday, and for this reason he is being targeted for deletion here. GreekTiger (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't act on personal impulse

Thanks again. --Sc straker (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Whatever the reasons for nominating, I don't feel this is a notable article. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Deleting or keeping should not be based upon your feelings but on whether or not this meets the criteria for notability.
 * Keep This article is notable based upon the subject meeting both WP:PROF criteria and WP:MUSIC criteria. This scholar/artist publishes in multiple formats to multiple audiences including major media sources (MTV, Billboard, Los Angeles Times). The scholar/artist also references both academic and artistic work in interviews, publications, and conferences. Neocultural (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)USER talk: Neocultural15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the above user has attempted to remove the AfD template from the page Jenuk1985  |  Talk  22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The guy has released 4 records, has been reviewed by major media, and has even played with Sting and Annie Lennox. His musical career is more notable than 99% of musicians, AND he is an assistant professor. You can claim that he is more notable in the music bussiness that in the academia, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that he is not notable enough to be in wikipedia. GreekTiger (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the one who put this page up and after watching this and other related pages I am very uncomfortable with the amount of attention paid to the deletion of articles/pages. I put this article to connect and define the body of work that the subject did in both academia and music. There is nothing sinister about it. Nevertheless, it seems as if "editors" chase/stalk/swarm around articles ad nauseam to change/alter/delete to enlarge their "contribs" numbers; so, that they can control the filtering of information (on the net no less) and gain power over those without their specialized knowledge of Wikipedia. I have gone and looked at the "editors" involved with this article and their histories and found that the majority of these editors engage in what might be termed "hostile" by anyone outside of their activities. I am not trying so much to attack anyone, just to point out that judging by their Wiki histories articles for deletion seems to be more about a grab for power than the "kindness and empathetic" doctrine they claim in "making Wikipedia better" etc. I personally am a intellectual who doesn't have time to battle everyone on here who claims to "control" and "decide" who is "notable" and who isn't. And though I don't necessarily need to point out the fact that their are significant ideological issues present in this whole process, I will state that this resembles what another "editor/responder" quoted on another page as "fascism." Pardon my free speech. How do people have the time to spend on this site endlessly tagging articles for deletion? Makes you think huh? I hope that you all will reflect upon my words carefully. Thank you. Nappystar (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment and Thank you, Nappystar! Just trying to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines, not feelings or delusions of power as implied.  Will gladly change my vote, if you can prove that this individual meets the following criteria:
 * 1) The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * 2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * 3) The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
 * 4) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * 5) The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
 * 6) The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
 * 7) The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * 8) The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
 * 9) The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment SC stalker thank you for your comment. The easiest would by #9 Musician/Artist/Composer. If you will look on the actual page you will see that the subject meets numerous standards for notability in those areas (I am somewhat uncomfortable with standards in the arts???). Anyone working in the field of Disgust, Contagion, and Ritualized Behavior towards dead bodies would almost certainly be familiar with the subject also fulfilling #1. The subject gives invited presentations in North America and Europe, has contributed to edited volumes, and has 1 monograph due out this fall, 1 edited volume due out in 2010, and another monograph in prep. Why is this significant and notable? Because the subject is the "only" scholar currently developing a cognitive theory on ritualized disposal behavior by humans. Thanks. Nappystar (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nappystar (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with changes. It is one thing to delete the article altogether and another to change its category. The subject is obviously a notable musician, so I think that the whole discussion is misleading. The debate should be whether the entry is primarily about an academic or an artist. Neologistic (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – the same "new" users have also commented on Articles for deletion/Dimitris Xygalatas, an AFD on another similar professor. MuZemike 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment MuZemike, what would be the issue with "new" users? Unless you mean those that don't spend their entire days deleting articles? When and How does one become an "old" user? And, why exactly is this relevant to the argument of notability for this article? When people make these types of comments it leads one to believe that there is a type of "group" mentality between editors. After reading nappystar's comments, there are several editors in this debate and one on another subject (Xygalatas) where the majority of contribs (80-90%) are on articles for deletion. Although I am not singling out anyone in particular, there are a few that risk "guilt" by history and by association. I think you know what I am talking about. This article clearly meets at least one if not two or more rules for inclusion as notable. I agree with Neologistic maybe changes are needed??? But I see no reason that this page is even up for debate on deletion. Thanks! Neocultural (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment MuZemike, you have also commented in both cases, and the same person has initiated both AfD's. What does this mean? Do you actually have anything to add to the debate? It is clear that even if the subject had sold more records that Elvis some people here would not accept his notability. If you already have made your decision, just go ahead and do what you have decided and spare us all the time. Neologistic (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment MuZemike made a valid observation. Neocultural, you may like to read WP:CIVIL. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Jenuk1985, I read it. It still has nothing to do with the "notability" of this article. MuZemike's argument is an ad hom argument (attacking the person not the argument).I also stand by what I what I said. There is nothing that is inflammatory about my words. From what I can tell the accounts are not that "new" on here. Mine is most likely 2007 or 2008? Do I go around and edit all day on Wiki? Nope! Neocultural (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a vague approximation of notability involved here in terms of the subject's musical activities; "Leisure McCorkle" does in fact seem to turn up in some searches here and there, but I don't think the band is quite as widely known as the article suggests. The academic side of things, however, is not notable; above, we're told that the subject has some stuff being published soon. That's nice; what we require is references indicating that the subject is considered notable by independent sources - there appear to be none, so there's some WP:CRYSTAL issues here as well. We need to see more refs on the music side of things too. For now, weak delete is my opinion, but changeable based on references being presented. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I googled William W. McCorkle Jr. 27,400 results. I googled Leisure McCorkle 12,700 results. I didn't go through them all or anything (obviously), but it has this subject from a multitude of sources including conferences, involved in writing books and papers, recording and releasing albums, touring nationally and internationally, and having his music played on MTV, and sold on all the major web/retail sites (e.g. itunes, amazon, napster, snocap). I don't know what to tell you. Neocultural (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats odd, I got 75 results searching for "William W. McCorkle Jr." (searching without the quotes is silly because of the amount of unrelated pages it brings up... 141,000 in this case). The #1 result is WP, the #2 result is a copy of WP. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  00:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok...I did it your way 99 for the academic and 2014 for the musician. ALso citation for edited volume forthcoming with ISBN and release date for publication with collection of experts in the field http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=358 and an edited volume on leading research in the field from the most notable scholars on the topic http://www.collinsfoundationpress.com/E%20of%20R/E%20of%20R%20Home.htm  already in print.Neocultural (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I take those two links as more evidence to delete the article, this person has made non-notable contributions to these books. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you search for "leisure mccorkle" in Amazon, iTunes, and Napster. If you still think he is not notable as a musician, then I will just give up and never talk again. Neologistic (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how he turns up on online sites; I could put something up on any of them tomorrow if I felt like it, it doesn't mean I'm notable. We need to see references like newspaper, magazine, or other articles talking about this person in publications that have their own editorial oversight. We need coverage of his activities by people who aren't him. thus far, there just isn't any of that available; I'm hoping that the several editors who have surfaced to argue this point will be able to find that. As to the comment below: the burden of proof in any discussion like this is on the people trying to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, Tony Fox, you are actually telling me that "if you felt like it" you could go on Amazon and iTunes Store tomorrow and offer fake records for sale! Either you are a phenomenal hacker, or have a weird sense of humor. In any case, as I promised, I am not going to waste any more of my time on this. Neologistic (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting read on my comments. My point is that people can get self-published stuff up onto all of those sources quite easily; I've been involved in discussions regarding articles about them in the past, and they are generally deleted when there are no sources - you know, those things I'm suggesting that you need to get to prove that the statements in the article are correct and that he's notable? - available. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Jenuk1985, what are you talking about? The subject is one of the main author/researchers of these edited volumes. That doesn't make any sense??? Are you familiar with academia? You asked for citations and I went and found them for you for this subject. (Are you not supposed to be the editor who tracks this info down?) I don't get it, you say you want to help make the article and wikipedia better but then you respond like it doesn't matter??? You need to read very carefully the authors of those books, who they are, where they carry out their research etc. Between the two groups, these are the most notable scholars in the field. The subject is one of them. Neocultural (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Tony I will post several "independent third party" references today. Hopefully that will suffice. Nappystar (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF. Chuuumus is right on target by suggesting that “… the article should … be deleted and republished under the artist's stage name …” To that I would add that the new article should emphasize notability under WP:MUSIC, if it is deemed to be notable under that category, with academic contributions mentioned in a minor way.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/References Tony, as promised. I am just posting a few 3rd party independent sources (all of which have editors/editorial boards). There are literally hundreds of these dating back to 1985 on the subject. Leisure McCorkle and his music are referenced in:

The Irish Times written by Peter Crawley 12/16/2002 "Leisure McCorkle, "Jet Set Baby" (MoRisen Records, 2002) Dublin, ROI

Amplifier Magazine written by David Bash Issue 34 Jan-Feb 2003 p. 54 "Spotlight on Leisure McCorkle."

Billboard Magazine written by Ray Waddell November 16, 2002 "Venue Views." Los Angeles, CA.

The Charleston City Paper written by Larry Queen January 26, 2000 p. 32. Charleston, SC.

Entertainment Today written by Paul Anderson November 22, 2002 "Hot Dates." Los Angeles, CA.

Jersey Beat written by Keith A. Gordon Issue #73 Summer 2003 Weehawken, NJ.

The Big Takeover written by Jack Rabid Issue # 51 New York, NY.

The Charlotte Observer written by Tonya Jameson "World Premier of Leisure McCorkle's new album." Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2002 (posted online and hard copy) Charlotte, NC.

The Santa Monica Mirror written by Tony Peyser "Jet Sets." November 20-26, 2002 Santa Monica, CA.

The Chicago-Sun Times written by Mary Houlihan "Club Hopping." Friday November 29, 2002 Chicago, IL.

Creative Loafing written by Samir Shukla "Music/Leisure McCorkle" November 27, 2002 Charlotte, NC.

The Charlotte Observer written by Kenneth Johnson "Live Wire" November 27, 1998 Charlotte, NC.

Hope that helps! Nappystar (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That certainly gives us a bit more to work with. A lot of them are just show listings, however, and aren't really applicable. Longer articles do help; could you provide web links to some of those, if possible, so we can review them? I just searched through places like Billboard, which usually archives things really well, and couldn't find anything but the standard All Music Guide bio, for example. Working web links would be really useful here. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/reply Tony all of these are more than "show listings." They actually contain features/stories/interviews/tour info etc. I have hard copies of them in my hand right now. I would imagine that anyone can call up the "fact checkers" from anyone of these publications and they should be able to provide the relevant info. Which brings up another interesting argument. It is fairly clear that the subject falls into a "hedge" category. Simply the subject is "notable" because he is engaged in both scholarly and artistic disciplines. I would argue that this is notable in and of itself; however, upon earlier references in regards to the edited volumes, McCorkle routinely is invited to present papers at "invited" and most importantly "peer reviewed" panels and conferences. The edited volumes were references for this; however, the subject recently gave invited/peer review presentation (Ritual Studies Panel) at the American Academy of Religion (AAR) which is a blind review process by an executive committee of experts who judge submitted papers for acceptance. The AAR is the scholarly/community for specialist in Religious Studies. He has also given peer-reviewed papers for the "Cognitive Science of Religion" panel for the North American Association for the Study of Religion (NAASR), and the "World Congress for Ritual" in Heidelberg, GER. ALL of these are also referenced on the web (the AAR and Heidelberg on the article itself.) Although any ONE of these facts may not acceptable for notability, the SUM of his Music AND research is notable. Nappystar (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nappystar (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The opinions here are that he's not notable for the academic aspect - he doesn't appear to meet the guidelines there as yet. "Tour info" is nice if it's more than "so-and-so is playing here tonight" - which a number of these appear to be. I can't really speak regarding hard copies of articles - it's hard to say "yes, that's the real deal" when we can't see it. The Billboard ref would be great and I'd certainly consider that a good reference, but it's not online. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment OK, I've researched all the references posted above. I should point out that this is really moot because this AfD is about the subject's notability per WP:PROF!  Anyway, most of them I can't verify through Google, but based on the titles it would appear as though the majority of these are listings in calendars or upcoming events in the publications: "Club Hopping", "Hot Dates", etc., would not meet WP:MUSIC #1 under the second exception (Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.).  I was able to verify an independent review of the subject in the Santa Monica Mirror, and it definitely meets WP:MUSIC #1, but it's only a single reference and WP:MUSIC #1 seems to call for multiple non-trivial published works.  Based on the references provided I would still vote Weak delete for the musician's article at this time pending further research.  Here's a summary:  chuuumus  ( talk ) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Irish Times no results;
 * 2) Amplifier Magazine no results;
 * 3) Billboard Magazine no results;
 * 4) Charleston City Paper no results;
 * 5) Entertainment Today no results;
 * 6) Jersey Beat no results;
 * 7) Big Takeover no results;
 * 8) Charlotte Observer 2 results come up, but they are unavailable on source's website (Google cache indicates they are schedule listings which do not meet WP:MUSIC #1);
 * 9) Sun Times no results;
 * 10) Santa Monica Mirror #1 active page but does not meet WP:MUSIC #1 per the second exception;
 * 11) Santa Monica Mirrow meets WP:MUSIC #1;


 * Comment I don't know what to tell you Chuuumus? They exist and many of them exist in my hand in hard copy and some were taken from Information listing services like Burrel's a leading industry site for the entertainment business. If you are so bent on getting rid of this article, then just do it already. Otherwise take your little hands off the computer and pick up the phone or email one of the authors or editors from those publications and check it for yourself. This "fact checking" has now become completely ridiculous to me. You have wasted enough of my and everyone else's time. It is clear this process is not legitimate and not valid. Oh yea, Leisure McCorkle's song "Does She Really Know?" from the album "Jet Set Baby" (MoRisen, 2002) was featured on The Real World Sydney for Music Television (MTV) in episode 7 "Whining and Dining" the week of 9/12/2007 and can be heard at http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1569057&vid=175307  New York, NY. You can buy the cd to cross check that claim.  Nappystar (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nappystar, I don't think anybody here is "bent on deleting" this article. The priblem is that Wikipedia is not a blog or something like that, it's an encyclopedia. That means that we can only put up information that is backed up by reliable sources. It's not enough that one of us says "I have seen this or that" or "I know this or that is notable", we need independent sources that confirm this. If nobody would ever have written anything about Albert Einstein, we would not have an article on him (fortunately, there are lots of sources on him :-). So that is what this "fact checking" is about. Wikipedia needs to be authorative and we cannot be so if we don't check our facts. Please read WP:V and WP:RS, where all these things are explained much better and in much more detail than I can do.
 * As for the reviewed contributions to books and meetings, unless these are exceptional honors, they don't satisfy any of the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Publishing and talking about their work is what academics do. Therefore, only if it can be shown that their works have an impact above and beyond what is usual for their field do they become notable. --Crusio (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Do any of you actually read? Nappystar basically laid it all out for you on a plate. S/he gave multiple references that can be checked. No? Just because an editor can't find it on their "search" on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I see is laziness for one thing and a complete disregard for intellectual integrity. I would argue that the onus is not on Nappystar or any of the other "keep" editors anymore. Nappystar provided the references and made the case that the "Sum" of the subject's Artistic and Scholarly work is indeed notable. I agree with Nappystar! Just go ahead and delete it. This was the end GAME of Chumpus and the "deleters" anyway. You "deleters" spend your entire days swarming to any new page deletion worthy. I know because I have looked at your contrib histories. This is basically how you became an editor in the first place. I call on Tony, who is apparently a "supereditor" to make the call today, delete, keep, or change. So, we can all be done with it. Neocultural (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm involved in the discussion; an independent administrator will have to make a decision after the AFD has run for five days. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Neocultural, in addition to the links I gave Nappystar, I recommend you make yourself familiar with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. As for how to become an editor, anybody who knows how to navigate a browser can edit WP. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * reply WP:CIVIL "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors." Food for Thought! Neocultural (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

GreekTiger (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This conversation is getting really screwed now. Neocultural, you are not behaving in a civil way. Don't take things personally. Nappystar, if you have the hard copies of published sources, you should just add the necessary references into the article. Being a scholar myself, I know that the internet is not always the most reliable source of information. Add your sources in reference format. If you do that, noone can say they don't exist just because they can't find them in Google. For those who know how to look, there are libraries and archives as well. A newspaper article is not a difficult thing to find at all. I should say that I know the subject personally, and for this reason I know that it is easy to establish notability for him. Am I willing to do it? No. I don't have the time for that. But for those of you who do, it's a lot easier than just debating here for two days. If you provide proper references in the article, then the burden of disproving them is on the other side. And doing so is as easy as going to a library, calling a newspaper, or getting online access to their archives from a university.


 * After looking at the sources added, this is how I interpret them:
 * 1) http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofCognitionCulture/CurrentStudentsAlumni/ - does not establish notability, doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the article!
 * 2) http://www.collinsfoundationpress.com/E%20of%20R/E%20of%20R%20Home.htm and http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=358 - previously discussed
 * 3) http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=358 - previously discussed
 * 4) http://www.teo.au.dk/en/research/current/cognition Conference presentations don't establish notability
 * 5) http://www.phil.muni.cz/relig/easr2008/ as above
 * 6) http://www.rituals-2008.com/panels.php as above
 * 7) http://www.aarweb.org/ as above
 * 8) http://www.theapp.appstate.edu/archives_00-01/00-10-26/entertainment.htm I can't read anything in here that really establishes notability
 * 9) http://www.redeyeusa.com/artist/233/news/144/ While it goes some way, I don't think this is enough to establish notability on its own (even combined with the other link from the same site)
 * 10) http://www.amazon.com/Jet-Set-Baby-Leisure-McCorkle/dp/B000077SZQ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1236196790&sr=8-1 definitely not a valid source. Just an item page
 * 11) http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/175307/piece-of-the-putti.jhtml#id=1569057 I cant comment on this as it can't be viewed outside of the US
 * 12) http://www.redeyeusa.com/artist/233/news/143 As #9
 * 13) http://www.internationalpopoverthrow.com/schedule-Detroit-2009.htm just a list of shows
 * 14) http://www.sterling-sound.com/main.php belongs as an external link, not a source Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Final Comment Conference presentations may establish notability if they are numerous as a cumulative body of work. I listed links that at least might show correlation between hard copy references for notability WP: MUSIC. I am just over it. You people don't have a life. I can't say that I didn't try to meet you all more than half way. Nappystar (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks. All opinions are valid here; people are offering their opinions, and an administrator will look over this discussion to determine what happens with the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete fails both WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC, per Crusio & Jenuk1985. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The case for WP:MUSIC is less clear to me, but the fact that his musical activities are relegated to a final paragraph labeled "other activities" indicates that this is not an article about his music and that music cannot be the justification for keeping the article as written. A different article titled with his stage name and focusing on his music with a paragraph at the end labeled "other activities" describing his academic pursuits might have a different fate. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As an academic clearly and obviously non-notable--no published work except 2 chapters in collected works,, and one does not get recognized to even be an academic through conference papers alone. A book where the contract is still being negotiated is very far from being published--or perhaps even written, except for a sample chapter. I can't comment on music, except that in any context,  a paragraph containing mainly a list of other people with whom he has been vaguely associated is generally a sure sign of non-notability. DGG (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment significant changes have been made to this article by nappystar that should satisfy the majority of the editors on this subject for non-deletion. Neocultural (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still an ugly mess of redlinks, resumecruft, and attempts at notability-by-association. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still mainly a list of other associated people, some of whom are notable. DGG (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence from reliable sources of how the subject meets WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC is provided or apparently available. Nuttah (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2009 (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.