Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Broderick


 * 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   Delete. Sufficient sources could not be found to demonstrate notability. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lee Broderick

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Proposed deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. Has not received attention from reliable independent sources except locally (Liverpool)." Contested, article improved but not by tackling the main point of sourcing. There are no Google News hits for him, and only some 200 distinct Google hits. He doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Fram (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This really depends on what's meant by "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Does touring as a supporting act count, and if not, might we count supporting muliple notable artists on their tours? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has he received "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" for this? Fram (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't reach the stage of testing against WP:MUSIC as he does not pass the general notability guidelines - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is some information in the local press, see Liverpool Echo, icLiverpool.com. However, I don't think it is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:31, 17 May 2010 (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.