Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Seamount


 * 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 redirect to King's Heralds. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob Seamount

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Kelly hi! 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Under-referencing is a valid concern and one that should be addressed, but it is not of itself a reason for deletion. So long as references can be provided, and Google suggests they can, then there are no WP:V concerns. As it is, the subject appears to be notable in a number of different fields so there is not even a single suitable target for redirection. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to King's Heralds. Singing in this gospel quartet appears to be his main achievement, and the great majority of the mentions of him are as a member of the group. The rest is laudable, but hardly noteworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources, or redirect to the King's Heralds. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above. I think there's enough group-related references to justify a mention at the group's page, and this then becomes a reasonable search term for a redirect. If more sources become available, this can always be revisited, though I admit the chances of that are low. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above, as secondary source coverage of the subject himself, rather than the group, appears largely trivial. --DGaw (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2011 (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.