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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Arvinder[edit]

Erik Arvinder (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)

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable studio musician/arranger. Has worked with a lot of artists but notability is not inherited from them. Lots of credits but primarily as a session player, none saying notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You nominated this before already, it got relisted twice, and closed on 4 July 2019. Now you are trying again? Anyway, the Google news search results are mostly not in English. The Quietus is a reliable source and comments on him and his work at [1]. A musician is known for their work, and that many famous people wouldn't work with him for notable albums unless he was quite skilled. His work is part of something notable, so that makes him notable under the subject specific guidelines for musicians. WP:NMUSIC Dream Focus 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Was nominated and kept as late as July this year. And already re-nominated. Still reliable sources and passes WP:GNG per work in music as per previous AfD.BabbaQ (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My !vote is the same now as it was then. The article is referenced with non-trivial coverage and the subject has achieved notability in his field. Regarding the "UPE" it is troubling, but does not diminish the notability of this person. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh look. The advertisement rescue squad has been canvassed. At least Dream Focus has supplied us with a good source. Not like the other two vague waves. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't be bothered to reinvestigate since I just did so this about 5 months ago. The second AfD gave me the WP:NOTAGAIN feeling. This time I put the article on the ARS list in hopes that someone there could find something more. I am sorry that you are bothered by that. I hope that the diligence of Dream Focus can allay your suspicions about canvassing. DF was not involved in the last AfD you placed on this article, and as such they did their own checking. Perhaps I will work on the article a bit more. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to see good diffs of me and Lightburst being canvassed to come here and !vote. Otherwise I will consider it meaningless slander. We both know that you will not provide any such diffs, so please think twice before making these kind of accusations in the future.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Arvinder is a perennial journeyman and sideman, and most of his notice is in relation to the people he has collaborated with, but the other voters in this and the previous nomination have found some reliable sources (such as Quietus) that might justify a stub article. This one needs to be cleaned up with unreliable sources removed, but that is a different process. Also, a nominator who throws accusations at voters with whom he disagrees should deliver the same level of evidence that he demands from everyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - journeyman musician, doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Regarding canvassing. It's obvious, since not a single person who belongs to the "rescue squad" has made a meaningful contribution to the article in an effort to show notability. Rather, after posting on that page, they simply came here to !vote. That's pretty much the definition of canvassing. That being said, I would not include BabbaQ, since I don't believe they are part of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Onel5969:. I did do my dilligent before search to confirm the many references in the article. And !voted June 2019. So I felt the same as I did then. Regarding canvassing, I only see two ARS members here, and I am one. Many times the members have other interests. in any event, the other member did research posted above. And meanwhile here is a video of the subject demonstrating his virtuosity. i am beginning cleanup. Lightburst (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not all musicians are notable. I don't think he is composing his own music or such, he just works for orchestras/etc. No awards. No reviews of his work. No in-depth coverage. What makes him notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing is somewhat weaker than I would have preferred – true also for the sentences I've added – but to say he just works for orchestras makes it sound like what he does is less important than it is. Making an arrangement for an orchestra is a creative endeavour akin to composing. (In addition to his supporting roles for television, other musicians and so on.) /Julle (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why relist this AfD when a clear consensus for Keep is there. Anyways, stand by my Keep !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Several nice credits? Yes. Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? No, not seeing this at all. A little bit in the Quietus source, but that leaves a ways to go. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 17 November 2019 (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.