Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Nolan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Easily passes WP:MUSICBIO, and nobody wishes to delete this article except the nominator. The AfD has been posted for almost three weeks. Needing to add additional sources is not a reason to delete an article; tag it and fix it. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Nolan[edit]

Clive Nolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person just does not appear individually notable, low level quality and depth of independent wikipedia reliable reports. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We have a very clear notability guideline for musicians, namely WP:MUSICBIO, which states that "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" is considered notable. Clive Nolan is a member of three such notable ensembles, namely Pendragon, Shadowland and Arena. Any shortcomings in this article about this notable musician should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. I invite Off2riorob to explain coherently and with regards to specific policy why this particular musician is not notable. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see a depth of independent coverage to write a decent life story, see my nomination statement. I still don't. Subject would benefit from merging back to his present ensemble. Subject is the subject of a report at the BLP noticeboard, see here. I stubbed it back with a mind to building it back up but the content which appears to be cut and copied from a single source was replaced, under the circumstances, and considering the lack of actual independent writing, I support merging back as not independently notable. I hadn't realized that if you were in 3 bands it was like a gold star guarantee to get a poor wikipedia fluffed up bio, and I still don't support that. That articles an auto-bio, written by an involved person and is just a reprinting of his blog, we might as well just have a link to his blog for what added value it is to the world. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to write a decent life story. Stubs are good. Such stubs are useful for navigation (Yes I have read WP:USEFUL). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guideline is a guideline describing the kind of person who is likely to get sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to sustain a biography. It's a guideline. The applicable policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The require that the subject has been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No such sources are cited in the article. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those three require that the subject has been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the genral notability guideline, plus WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in action. We cannot tease biographies out of random collections of passing mentions because we end up with articles that violate the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Merging works, though. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 18 December 2010 (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) 01:58, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think he achieves WP:MUSICBIO. I think there's sufficient BLP-worthy sources out there to provide the core facts about this individual; if there's any detail in the article that can't be properly sourced, feel free to remove it. I do not know which policy mandates a wide range of sources to tell "a decent life story"; if somebody could provide a link to that policy, it would allow me to change my !vote or tweak the article accordingly. It's difficult for me to parse the second half of the nomination statement - if the nominator would like some other point to be addressed, just say what it is. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arena (band), which appears to be the only band he has been in that is actually notable. There doesn't appear to be any sourced content to merge anywhere.--Michig (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bobrayner's rationale. Enough sourceable material to establish notability, the rest is editing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you please add your cited content then, the AFD is ongoing for two weeks, and nothing has been added at all to support true notability at all, nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clive_Nolan&oldid=1069099664"