- 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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Kevin James Maher
- Kevin James Maher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. What happened here is that an editor with no prior contribution history added the AFD template to this article and then walked away without completing the nomination process, following which a different editor filled out the nomination form with a personal attack on the templater instead of just removing the tag. (The latter editor, for the record, is an WP:SPA who's never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Maher or his band — so there's the possibility of a WP:COI violation here as well.) After reviewing the situation, however, I'm opting to complete the proper nomination process instead of just quashing the whole thing, as there is a valid reason why Wikipedia should consider deleting or redirecting this instead of leaving it as a standalone article: specifically, the article does not actually make a strong or well-referenced claim that he actually passes WP:NMUSIC — he's a musician who's notable primarily for his work in a band, and does not have enough coverage as an independent topic to really merit anything more than a redirect to the band. The only sources that have been added here at all are ones which mention his name in passing, but which are fundamentally about Louise Burns rather than Maher — and that fails to constitute substantive coverage of Maher. Probably the best course of action here would be a redirect to Fake Shark – Real Zombie!, although of course I'd be happy to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be improved. Bearcat ( talk) 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 01:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep – I've added citations to articles in Exclaim and the Leader-Post. Maher has a bit of notability separate from his band: film composing, and songwriting-producing for Carly Rae Jepsen and Kat von D. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – The following sources indicate that this subject passes WP:BASIC:
- –
NorthAmerica
1000 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to withdraw this if some of those sources actually started finding their way into the article, instead of just getting listed here.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
-
User:Bearcat: Respectfully, please read
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
NorthAmerica
1000 03:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Respectfully, quality in the here and now does matter. It would take a ridiculous amount of time and wasted energy to actually delve into an extended philosophical argument about the relative merits of immediatism vs. eventualism — whereas it would take, what, a whole five to ten minutes for somebody to just buckle down and toss those five links into the article right away? Minimal effort for maximum payoff — I don't think it's that unreasonable.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:Bearcat: So why not do it yourself then? NorthAmerica 1000 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Respectfully, quality in the here and now does matter. It would take a ridiculous amount of time and wasted energy to actually delve into an extended philosophical argument about the relative merits of immediatism vs. eventualism — whereas it would take, what, a whole five to ten minutes for somebody to just buckle down and toss those five links into the article right away? Minimal effort for maximum payoff — I don't think it's that unreasonable.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
-
User:Bearcat: Respectfully, please read
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
NorthAmerica
1000 03:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to withdraw this if some of those sources actually started finding their way into the article, instead of just getting listed here.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.