Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Husband

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Husband[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Possible concerns relating to the Biographies of living persons policy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Would appear to be notable based on his membership in a prominent band, but can't seem to find too many sources about him. However, all bets are off if the BLP concerns are valid--in that case, it would be best to blow the article up and start afresh. Blueboy 96 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment what Blueboy96 said, perhaps a redirect to Level 42 would be the way to handle this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no BLP concerns here. All we have is a user (who claims to be the subject) preferring his own version to the current stub. Neither version contains negative or obviously objectionable material. However, given the low notability and the appalling absence of real sources, a (protected?) redirect might be the best solution for now. But I'm none to fussed whatever.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be independently notable, so it's an easy delete or redirect. Add in that the BLP subject wants it gone, there's no reason to keep it based on the notability standards we internally have to adhere to. rootology (C)(T) 16:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject appears to meet three factors of WP:COMPOSER - influence being the most precise. It is well cited and verifiable. What's the problem? Bearian (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Apparently not as influential as claimed. The article states that Sean Reinert and Tomas Haake "cite Husband's playing as a primary source of inspiration." If you check the refs, though, you find that Reinert only names Husband as one of many "favorites", and Haake just claims to have discovered him as an adolescent, only implying that he likes him. Tim Ross (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't appear to have neutral/independent sources to verify claims. JamesBurns (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He has received plenty of press, especially in the UK, for his jazz piano career (although the writers typically do make note of his work as a drummer for Level 42). I've added a sampling of the sources just now. There's more than enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:31, 10 January 2009 (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.