Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Horton


 * 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 Papa Roach. keep votes not policy based Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Horton

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Members of a notable band that fail to establish individual notability as per WP:MUSIC. According to WP:MUSIC, such articles should be redirected to the main band article. Attempts to do this have been consistently reverted without discussion, so seeking to establish consensus to either delete or redirect here. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also nominating the following articles for a similar reason

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * redirect all to Papa Roach and protect all for now. based on what I see wp:music supports redirects and not individual articles. The only sourced info worth keeping is the Buckner lawsuit which is already in the Papa Roach article with the same source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP ( NO redirect ) Plenty of sources exist. But it's not as clear that Tobin Esperance or Dave Buckner have a lot written about them or that they have the kind of talent and star power that Horton obviously does (hope this doesn't cause hurt feelings, I might well be wrong...these others guys may deserve their own pages, I just don't know enough about them). So you will get no real argument from me, right now, on a redirect for these other two.  --Firefly322 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of these results do you think shows Horton's individual notability independent of Papa Roach? ("Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." from wp:music). Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We can WP:wikilawyer this to death. Or we can admit that the guy is talented, that he stands out, and that he has some kind of star power. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The guy is talented, he has some kind of star power, as "Jerry Horton from Papa Roach". Look at the google news search you provided, Papa Roach "Jerry Horton". You included Papa Roach. Where is his notability past Papa Roach? Look at the Jerry Horton article. Cruft based on OR and trivia. Papa Roach article is small enough to keep what little info in the Horton article is worth keeping without the need for other articles. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep They publish quotes of this one guy in many news sources. Therefore he is notable.   D r e a m Focus  12:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a keep just for Horton? Esperance and Buckner are also included in this afd. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm on the fence.  But it would be helpful if those who feel that he deserves his own article would point us to the specific sources that indicate how he has "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases", as Duffbeerforme suggests is required by WP:MUSIC.  I think that was a fair comment, working off the guidance (which is what I think should direct our conclusion).  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (See MTV artilce and Sac. Bee article). It can be extremely abusive (in the sense of violating the WP:5P) to apply wiki-policy in an overly precise way. That's why there are commen sense loopholes Ignore all rules and WP:Wikilawyering to provide such relief. This is a clear case where the current policy needs to be taken with more than a few grains of salt. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect all unless someone can come up with a compelling reason to do otherwise. And "let's just ignore the rules this time" is not, on its own, a compelling reason (neither is "he's got talent"). Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (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.