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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cargnello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a very minor local artist and the vast majority of the purported links are either dead or apparently unrelated. Article reads like self-promotion. Guy zaky (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as, despite the current sourcing, this is still questionable for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• While I have heard of the guy before and actually have one of his albums, I fired up ProQuest fully expecting that I was actually going to have to say "delete as I can't add any viable sourcing to fix this". But I get 133 hits dating all the way back to 1998...which means I can salvage it after all. I think I need to start trusting my gut reaction instead of my second thoughts. Keep and I'll take a stab at cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I significantly improved the sourcing last night, so the article is now entirely keepable. While I acknowledge that there were some sourcing and writing tone problems in the version that existed before the nominator restubbed it down to almost nothing, the fact that I was able to revise and re-reference it so easily demonstrates that stripping it down to a bare assertion of his existence was not the correct solution to those problems: the notability was there, better sourcing for it was locatable, and accordingly just erasing the whole damn thing was not appropriate. And since doing all of that was the nominator's first Wikipedia edit ever under this username, I strongly suspect that they were motivated less by Wikipedia's actual rules and more by a personal vendetta (pardon the pun) of some sort against Cargnello. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The links are current and not dead and the musician meets the standards stated in Wikipedia:MUSIC. Littlefishbigfish 12:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The musician/poet meets the notability criteria handily when checking sourcing on many fronts and could probably add activist easily. Noteworthyone (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough coverage in notable newspapers and journals to pass WP:NM #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2016 (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.