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. Sources uncovered during the debate proved notability. I must say, the techinque he "pioneered" sounds a lot like this guy. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mongrain[edit]

Erik Mongrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NN musician. Fails WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles numbers 2-10 without question. The only possible criteria is #1, but I couldn't find any mentions in the articles on the artost 's web page that except Works comprising merely trivial coverage mostly describing one upcoming appearance or another (promotional placements in papers etc). G-hits also shows tons of listings but they also seem to be very trivial, usually placements announcing some appearance, several blogs. Lack of Notability has been discussed on Talk:Erik_Mongrain since 2006 and not yet mitigated. Despite assertion by author, fails all WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This editor's opinion seems incongruent with WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles which specifies that coverage must be non-trivial. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really need to refresh myself on my Wiki rules...wait, what about all of the news pages that are linked to on his press page. Are you saying all of them are trivial? (I can't translate it, which is why i'm asking) SilverserenC 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if those or trivial or not. Those links go to his site and reliable sources need to be independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the Boston Herald is not independent? Since when? - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple trivial coverage fails criteria #1. Have you read it? Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:51, 12 December 2008 (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.