Deletion of William W. McCorkle Jr.

Comment: No evidence of passing . The case for  is less clear to me, but the fact that his musical activities are relegated to a final paragraph labeled "other activities" indicates that this is not an article about his music and that music cannot be the justification for keeping the article as written. A different article titled with his stage name and focusing on his music with a paragraph at the end labeled "other activities" describing his academic pursuits might have a different fate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:MUSIC)

Comment: MuZemike made a valid observation. Neocultural, you may like to read 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: Does not seem to pass notability requirements under . Chuuumus is right on target by suggesting that “… the article should … be deleted and republished under the artist's stage name …” To that I would add that the new article should emphasize notability under , if it is deemed to be notable under that category, with academic contributions mentioned in a minor way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:MUSIC)

Comment: Deleting or keeping should not be based upon your feelings but on whether or not this meets the criteria for |notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: OK, I've researched all the references posted above.  I should point out that this is really moot because this AfD is about the subject's notability per !  Anyway, most of them I can't verify through Google, but based on the titles it would appear as though the majority of these are listings in calendars or upcoming events in the publications: "Club Hopping", "Hot Dates", etc., would not meet  #1 under the second exception (''Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.'').  I was able to verify an independent review of the subject in the Santa Monica Mirror, and it definitely meets  #1, but it's only a single reference and  #1 seems to call for ''multiple non-trivial published works''.  Based on the references provided I would still vote '''Weak delete''' for the musician's article at this time pending further research.  Here's a summary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:MUSIC||WP:MUSIC||WP:MUSIC)

Comment: This article is notable based upon the subject meeting both  criteria and  criteria. This scholar/artist publishes in multiple formats to multiple audiences including major media sources (MTV, Billboard, Los Angeles Times). The scholar/artist also references both academic and artistic work in interviews, publications, and conferences
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:MUSIC)

Comment: Conference presentations may establish notability if they are numerous as a cumulative body of work. I listed links that at least might show correlation between hard copy references for notability . I am just over it. You people don't have a life. I can't say that I didn't try to meet you all more than half way
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP: MUSIC)