Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Buchanan

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Buchanan[edit]

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

Much like his sister, Aaron doesn't seem to be known for anything outside of being a frontman. I can find no hits (news or otherwise) that do not simply list him as part of either Aaron Buchanan & The Cult Classics or Heaven's Basement (and the references currently used on the article do likewise). Notability is not inherited, and he's currently failing GNG ~~and MUSICBIO~~. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep He is a prominent member of two notable bands so I vote to keep per Criterion #6 of WP:MUSICBIO, for reasons explained by Jclemens here. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bennv3771, you make a fairly valid point, I'll strike that portion of my nomination. There is still the GNG issue, of course, which is a bit more important. Zero independent sources with significant coverage make it hard to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Zero..? Although most of the sources provided in the main article were primary, there were still some which appeared to have some sort of reliability, and there seems to be at least some sort coverage of Aaron Buchanan from doing a quick google search, although wether those sources are significant and independent or not is up for debate. Morphdog (t - c) 19:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they're primary, they don't demonstrate notability. If they're about the band he's in (and only mention him) it's not significant coverage. WP:42 isn't an either/or situation. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Morphdog: This encyclopedia is based on reliable sources and our specific inclusion criteria requires independent reliable sources. You cannot establish notability (generally) without independent reliable sources. This is not an exception to the rule. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just doesn't appear to be enough independent reliable coverage to warrant an article on this person. All the sources are primary and the most coverage he's gotten appears to be for leaving the band, followed by coverage of the person who replaced him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Sure the reference section is full, but it's references regarding things that are notable (other bands, recording studios, places, etc.) Ifnord (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTINHERITED. The lack of independent sourcing is what clinches this one for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 13 April 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.