Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Bettis

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bettis

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

I cannot tell if he is notable: the current references do not seem reliable, but it's not my field. I had previously G11'd a much cruder version,which is why I happened to notice this.) DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bettis should positively not be deleted from Wikipedia. He is making great strides in his career, has just released his 8th studio album for Disney's GayDays and has co-produced the new musical, The Groove Factory, which premiered in New York City on July 23, part of the 2012 New York Musical Theatre Festival. He is influential and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apworldny (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep I'm not an expert on his scene, but I think
WP:MUSICIAN he's released multiple albums on Centaur Records but I'm not sure it's this Centaur Records (which would establish notability). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Only one wp:notability-suitable reference and that one is brief/marginal regarding coverage. (BTW, it is not linked, I had to use the search engine at the linked web site to find it.) Also the article looks promotional and COI written and has has near-zero sourcing. The question mark is because if all of the unsourced claims of activity are true other suitable sources might exist. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:57, 23 August 2012 (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.