Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Lastiwka

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. Daniel (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lastiwka

Adam Lastiwka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:BLP of a composer, whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. The basis for notability here is that he's composed music for television (NMUSIC #10) — but notability doesn't fall into place just because you assert passage of a notability criterion, it requires you to use real media coverage to support passage of the notability criterion. The sources here are not reliable or notability-supporting media, however, but his own self-published website about himself, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person on blogs and podcasts, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in the internal newsletter of a professional trade organization. None of these are notability-supporting reliable sources, however, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of any independent third-party coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: One new source has been added to the article since the time of nomination — and while it is actually a real media source this time, it's not a substantive piece about Adam Lastiwka or his work, but just a glancing mention of Adam Lastiwka's existence in an overall review of a series. We're looking for sources that are specifically about him and his work, not sources that happen to mention his name in the process of being about something else. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep He has some third party coverage, mostly in industry media where he's done interviews and had some profiles written. 1 2 3 4. I'm not saying these are the strongest sources, but they do point to him being notable as a composer for film, TV and video games and I think they meet NMUSIC #10. The Paste story that mentions him, though only in passing, also clearly passes NMUSIC #10. If the interviews or profiles were in higher tier media I would be a strong keep all day but as it stands I can see either arguement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Face the Current is a blog, The Portfolio Composer is a podcast, and Hypable is a fandom app — so none of them are reliable or notability-clinching media outlets. SOCAN's Words and Music is fine — I've used it myself — but it isn't enough all by itself if it's the only decent source that can be found. Our notability standards aren't passed by just any web content you can find that happens to have the subject's name in it: firstly, it requires the sources to meet certain standards of journalistic quality and reputation, and doesn't just accept every website that exists. And secondly, it also requires the sources to do a lot more than just briefly mention his name, which is why I discounted the Paste source: we need sources that are substantively about him, not just sources that briefly mention his existence in the process of being about other things. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Color me convinced. Delete. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2021 (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.