Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Atherton


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Atherton (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. created probably by himself this is a blatant WP:AUTOBIO. also there is a famous cricketer by the same name as Mike Atherton, so not sure why this article gets naming preference over the more famous Atherton. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Certainly looks like COI, but that is no reason to delete. Subject appears to have achieved some prominence in the Australian musical scene. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep (giving benefit of the doubt for source; a quote would be nice:) -- entry in Oxford Companion to Australian Music is sufficient. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Michael Atherton (musician) at put a link at the top of the Mike Atherton page to him. Even Australians will not think of him as the most important Mike Atherton. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as the cricketer consistently goes by "Mike" and not "Michael" we don't need to make such a redirect, though I don't think it's a big deal either way. But keeping to the discussion at hand, should we take your comment Barney as a Keep vote with a request for move after keeping? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * you will see numerous cricket related articles link to Michael Atherton. LibStar (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case I change my opinion on the move. But definitely not the Keep vote. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the Centenary Medal (at least when given for accomplishments rather than age) is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like COI, no reason to delete Kabirat (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep and move. I can't see any evidence that this meets WP:GNG, WP:BAND or WP:ACADEMIC, but the Centenary Medal is probably enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. COI is neither here nor there as far as deletion is concerned. Move because the vast majority of Google and Google News hits for "Michael Atherton", and most wikilinks to this article, are about the cricketer. It should also be noted that an earlier version made a better case for notability and included a couple of references before the subject removed most of the content. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken it back to that version, made some minor improvements and added tags for citation to give contributors an idea where better references are required. All very strange.Deb (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as expanded. Combination of his role in forming a department at a university and his compositions. And, in particular, he's a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which we have generally accepted as a significant factor towards notability.  DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 20 June 2013 (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.