Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Chea

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Chea

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

Contested prod - Unreferenced article about a non-notable singer that fails WP:MUSICBIO and has been tagged as unsourced for one year. Aspects (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per my comments at the Claude V. McKnight III AFD. Needs substantially improved sourcing and rewrite. Doesn't even qualify to merge to group article, assuming the claim that he's the "baby back ribs" singer is legit. Hasn't he been parodied on SNL for that? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Being a member of a notable group does not make each of the members themselves notable. Aspects (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read NOTINHERITED carefully, this is one of the contexts where it expressly does not apply. It would be unusual if coverage of a notable group did not also establish notability under the GNG for its prominent members, which is a different issue than whether separate articles for such group members are appropriate. Perhaps you could explain your basis for concluding the subject is not notable, which is not demonstrated simply by showing the article to be rather badly written. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails GNG and, as mentioned, notability is not inherited. If there is an argument to be made here, please secure said argument by providing solid examples of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The article lacks that at present. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Striking, appears to be banned editor--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo, but (baby back ribs notwithstanding) I'd give strong consideration to a merge/redirect, or at least a stubbing. He has sufficient coverage to justify a separate article[1] but the article in its current state is giving me a headache.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2011 (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.