Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Kerman

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 Rockapella. Tim Song (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Kerman

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

Article does not (explicitly) provide adequate context for the subject, does not (explicitly) assert notability, and is not written in prose. ( If the context and notability were more discernable, I would have simply fixed the problems, but that is not the case.) RadManCF (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I managed to find enough sources on the man to assert WP:GNG. He seems to have been a part of an band influential enough to make him meet WP:ENT. However, if someone else could find more sources I'd feel more comfortable changing this to a strong keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rockapella. I'm not seeing any coverage about him indpendent of Rockapella. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. The coverage is just not significant enough to justify a stand-alone article. Merge preserves the content adequately. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:25, 12 March 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.