Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Marc Rousseau (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Marc Rousseau
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relisting for further discussion because my first nomination failed to garner any participation at all after two relists — and an editor has continually reverted any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect anyway, even though AFD consensus is not required for a redirect. The problem here remains that WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to a musician whose notability is within the context of a band rather than as an independent topic — the only reference in this entire article in which Rousseau is the main subject, rather than being namechecked in coverage of the band as a whole, is covering him in the context of having had to take a couple of weeks off from the band for emergency abdominal surgery. And most of the sources are primary or unreliable ones like Tumblr and Blogspot blogs and a Reddit thread. So nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). (Note also Articles for deletion/Shane Told, which did generate participation and was closed as a redirect for the same reasons that are applicable here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep greater notability outside the band than was true for Told, who has been with the band since the start. There are sufficient reliable sources, including primary sources such as blogs used with caution (which is permitted) to establish notability.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The coverage of him is all within the context of the band, and consists of being namechecked within articles whose primary subject is the band. And primary sources are permitted for additional verification of facts after enough reliable sources have been added to cover off the basic notability issue, but never under any circumstances count for anything toward the establishment of the topic's notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. I've been on Wikipedia almost a decade and the number of times I've seen "never under any circumstances" is minimal.  You dismiss the sources you don't like, deem guidelines rigid rules, and give every break against the article.  Primary sources are RS, they just need to be used with care.  There are ample sources establishing notability.  The content is usable and sourced, and it is difficult to see why the reader should be denied it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If primary sources could demonstrate or confer notability in and of themselves, then every single person who has a web page or a Tumblr blog would have to be given a Wikipedia article as well. But that's not how we do things on here — it's reliable source coverage that determines whether a person gets in here or not, and the reliable source coverage in this case is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So now it has been listed five times in less than two months. Is this like a European referendum, it goes on until the "proper" answer is given, and then stops?  Or is it best two out of three?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish an actual consensus one way or the other. It's not a question of "the correct answer" — if there were a "keep" consensus, then the article would have to be kept even if I still disagreed with that — but there has to be a consensus one way or the other. A "no-consensus" close, which is where the first one landed, resolves nothing — especially when it was "no consensus because nobody participated". Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect to Silverstein (band). A standalone article only makes sense if the subject has notability outside of the band (in this case). I don't see how anything else he has done confers standalone notability. The vast majority of the article deals with his personal life and the tenure with Silverstein, and the "Other activities" section is basically bereft of anything notable. I agree he fails WP:MUSICBIO individually and a redirect is appropriate, with no prejudice to going back to an article once he actually does something noteworthy. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:53, 24 January 2015 (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.