Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Oliver

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Oliver[edit]

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

PROD contested by grandchild. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a key member of two notable bands, ~~or merge to Saxon (band)~~. As guitarist of a clearly notable band, proposed deletion was a non-starter. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Should now be obviously notable to anyone given my improvements to the article. --Michig (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a key member of two notable bands please. Thanks --Groywiki (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Groywiki: and @Michig: Being a member of two notable bands MUSICBIO No. 6 states that a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". That is not the case here at all. No sources that I could find, and certainly none in the articles indicate that he was reasonably prominent. No sources provided and without the, MUSICBIO is not met. The article was a non-starter, not the prod or this AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was the guitarist in Saxon for 19 years during their most successful era, which including several charting singles and albums. The other band was named after him. Common sense should tell you that makes him a prominent member of both bands. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not a logical argument. If I were to say that someone was a member of parliament for 20 during his party's rule and that makes him a prominent MP, it would be as much a fallacy as your argument. He could have been a back-bencher that didn't even make the local news. If Oliver does not have press to indicate that he was a prominent member, all the claims that he's prominent or appeals to the fact that he was prominent are moot. Prove that he prominent and notable rather than ask us to accept the possible claims that he should be prominent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, maybe this was the one metal band whose guitarist wasn't a prominent member, and maybe the other band was named after a minor member as a joke. --Michig (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You're usually a good editor, but on this one point you're assumption is poor. Unless you can support it stop promoting it. There are no sources for this guitarist. Whether that's an anomaly or intentional is immaterial. What is of importance is that sources actually exist or they don't. My claim is that they do not exist. I can't supply any after a Google search. Of course, there may be print sources that exists that Google cannot find which explains that problem. However, if no sources actually exist, that 1) explains your inability to produce the sources and 2) supports the claim that GNG is not met. Your next writing should be a list significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything else is moot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not going to dignify your nonsense with further argument. --Michig (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You thought that this was an argument? That explains why you were so argumentative. Thanks for adding the references. If this were an argument, I won when you did that because that's what I was requesting from the outset. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Being a member of two notable bands, NMUSIC criterion #6, counts as a notability claim if it's supported by adequate reliable source coverage about his work for those two bands — but it is not a criterion that exempts a person from having to have reliable source coverage just because it's been asserted. But this isn't based on adequate reliable source coverage: it's based on two primary sources, one glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't otherwise about him, and unpublished and therefore unverifiable information gleaned from a private conversation with one of his bandmates. This is not what it takes to source a musician as passing a notability criterion. And further, the undeletion rationale was "this is my grandfather", which means per WP:COI the requester gets no special privilege to control the article's existence or content or sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sourcing in the article has zero bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true if, and only if, somebody can show hard evidence that a better depth and quality of sourcing is available to repair and improve the article with. No notability claim that can be made for him exempts anybody from having to show hard evidence that the sourcing is at least improvable — better sourcing doesn't have to be already be present in the article to make it keepable, but it does have to be shown that better sourcing exists by which the article can be improved to a genuinely keepable standard. If better sourcing can't be shown to exist, then we do not keep an article just because it states passage of a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Saxon (band). Sources are a bit scanty for a WP:BLP, but there's no reason not to redirect to the parent until enough sources can be found to support a standalone article. A Train^talk 23:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been substantially improved since it was nominated. Since the two !votes above are based mainly on the state of the article at the time of nomination, the closer should take this into consideration when weighing up the arguments presented here. --Michig (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Overturning NAC of "keep" in favour of more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been considerably improved since nomination with the addition by Michig of twenty extra references to add to the previous four. The references now contain reliable sources such as newspaper coverage and reliable book sources. WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO are now passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Saxon (band). Not enough WP:SIGCOV to pass criteria, but enough to have a redirect. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember Saxon (band), didn't know much about Oliver but there is more than enough for WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as this greatly improved article meets both. Dysklyver 20:40, 24 October 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.