Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Arkley


 * 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ian Arkley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject has been in or a session musician in multiple bands but fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Meets WP:MUSBIO criterion 6 - "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". No longer a penguin (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Has he been? I don't find any documentation to support that. He has been a member, but not a "reasonably prominent" member. In this case "reasonably prominent" means that sources write about him. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is one interpretation of "reasonably prominent". A different one is in WP:MUSBIO, which says that "Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent". He seems to have been a member (or leader) of Seventh Angel, My Silent Wake and Ashen Mortality. Now, I assumed somewhat that Seventh Angel and Ashen Mortality were notable, since they have articles (silly me), but upon closer review Ashen Mortality and My Silent Wake are probably only borderline cases of notability and Ashen Mortality should probably be reviewed for notability. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that the line you quote is about albums and songs that should otherwise be merged into the artist article. What we're discussing here is the artist and notability is the key (which is far from established here, I accept). No longer a penguin (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry. Still applies though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as it seems this AfD is suggesting this and the current article is not too of concern currently. Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better and the current article is still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even if he's way better known as a member of various bands than as a performer, himself, on his own merits, I agree that this is a case meeting WP:MUSBIO. It's not like he's just been a studio side-performer; he's been a vocalist- a 'frontman'. I think both Seventh Angel and Ashen Mortality are significantly well-known and his role in them is a part of that general notability. In terms of sourcing, I think coverage by the likes of HM Magazine (see here) and Allmusic (see here) demonstrate that; neither of those publications have detailed information on just any random group. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do have detailed information on just any random group. That's where they get the all from in the AllMusic title. If you can show me were Arkley has sufficient material to support inclusion I'll change my opinion. His bands are notable. he isn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No they don't. The name of the website has no bearing on its reliability. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Yes. They have information on most every band, and this individual is not even covered at the above link. This is the link for the subject being discussed: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ian-arkley-mn0001033699 no detailed info, but there is an entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they have *entries* for a lot of (but not all) artists, distinctly different to 'detailed information'. They only tend to have bios and reviews for artists that WP would consider notable. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by the other user, Allmusic noting that a certain band or release exists is not the same thing as having descriptions for artists with details included. Allmusic most certainly does not "have detailed information on just any random group"; that's self-evidently false. Look at the website's aforementioned account for metal band Ashem Morality and compare that to a group like the metal band Boned to see the difference (if you don't know Boned, they're the metal group behind the infamous Up At The Crack album, listen here, and are the perfect example of an artist being famous-ish yet neither Allmusic nor Wikipedia worthy). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As well, both bands that I mentioned have gotten commentary from HM Magazine, which is stated in the Ashen Mortality page, which makes the hair-splitting about Allmusic even more silly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC criterion 6. Aside from considerations of individual notability, would be a reasonable redirect to any of the bands he was in that have articles, so at worst it should be kept and trimmed down to verifiable details. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (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.