Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Ashbrook

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 close) RMHED (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ashbrook

I tagged this for speedy deletion on 3rd July under CSD A7 in that notability was not asserted. Another editor later legitimately removed the speedy tag after this message left on the talk page promised an improvement; however in the intervening13 days I can't see any real improvement and the single external link is nearly 6 years old, which whilst is not the only reason for deletion, would suggest a lack of recent activity to establish notability beyond the only album which is mentioned.

As such I believe that the article fails WP:N due a lack of widespread coverage. BigHairRef | Talk 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles- The creator has created a number of related articles; if this article is deleted, the album articles should be deleted also:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for this, this, this, and maaaaaaaaybe this, but probably not. The albums should be merged into the Stephen Ashbrook article for lack of independent coverage, and being little more than a track listing per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this should be kept because there's (just) enough evidence of coverage and the album articles should be merged into the main article.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (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.