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.
Weak Keep. Clearly, his work is better known than he is. I was able to find 3 sources, which I've added to the article, but they're weak. The story of his winning a Fulbright was clearly local news and the mention of his concert appearance is just that, a mention. The story of his travel through Europe with his friend is better, but the independence is unclear. (See below.) I'm interested to hear more discussion; I could go either way. He also appears to satisfy criteria "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" or "a highly prestigious academic award"WP:ACADEMIC and "a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work"WP:CREATIVE based on his Fulbright and his Synthesis Toolkit. Msnicki (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - limited but sufficient coverage in multiple third party sources. --Anthem 18:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable sources, and notability is not temporary. Chester Markel (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should email the guy at gary@music.mcgill.ca and asks in what computer magazines or newspapers he has been interviewed in. Surely some mention him. I'd do it myself, but my email isn't working at the moment. DreamFocus 20:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The report in the Telegraph is not exactly independent, because the article is written by Dan Gordon, and Scavone played with Gordon in that European tour. Since no other newspapers seem to have reported this, the notability of the event appears questionable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your concern re: the Gordon article. He's Scavone's friend so he's not disinterested in having both of them portrayed in a positive light. If he were writing about Scavone's musical talents on his latest album of recordings, I'd reject it as a primary source. The bar has to be a little higher when there's a commercial interest involved. But this is a pure WP:BIO, not WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:BIO rejects, as it should, any autobiographies as useful in establishing notability (and that presumably includes anything the subject has a hand in causing to be published) but doesn't appear to require that acceptable biographies be written by people who aren't friends or didn't participate in the same activities with the subject. Msnicki (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.