Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Gill (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Inspiral Carpets. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Gill[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." None of his activities outside of the band are notable. --woodensuperman 11:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Not wikipedia notable outside of his band. The previously AfD debate, in which no consensus was reached, was held in the wake of his suicide, which was widely reported in the UK. With the news being so fresh and widespread there were many editors voting keep. Now that things have cooled down a bit one can more objectively judge that there simply aren't the kinds of independent, third party references outside of his role in the band that establish stand alone notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Inspiral Carpets. Whether or not you believe there should be a standalone article here, the idea that all this content should just disappear is simply ridiculous. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (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.