Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Ferguson (musician)


 * 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. Weak-ish keep, bordering on no consensus. Keeper |  76  14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Ferguson (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-published biographical article which lacks reliable sourcing. DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep subject appears to received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources therefore the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. At worse, the subject was part of a notable band No Knife, so if the majority opinion is that the subject is not notable the normal outcome of such BLPs would be to redirect the article to the band which the person is notable for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which sources? I haven't been able to find any good sources that would show notability for the subject, and the article doesn't appear to have ever had any sources. - SudoGhost 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to echo this comment, which sources? Please, rather than claim that this subject is receiving significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, simply just cite said sources!  It would really help move this discussion forward, and otherwise I would have to dismiss your claim due to lack of credible evidence.  Sincerely, DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, as does the band itself. I was waiting for RightCowLeftCoast's response, but unless some reliable sources can be found that would show otherwise, the article's subject is not notable.  I've searched online as best as I could, but I wasn't able to find any such sources myself. - SudoGhost 19:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See the news sources here. Many are behind pay walls but appear to be significant coverage of the individual that is the subject of this AfD. Again, the individual was once a member of a notable band, and if the consensus is not for the subject being individually notable the common outcome is to redirect the article to the article of the band.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources do not present significant coverage, not enough to meet WP:GNG and certainly not enough to establish notability via WP:NMUSIC. Redirecting instead of deleting would also be inappropriate because (1) a parenthetical disambiguation would be an unlikely search term and (2) the band itself is not notable, and is very likely to be deleted as well. - SudoGhost 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – I've added multiple third-party sources, in such publications as The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Grand Rapids Press (which reviewed his performance opening for Switchfoot), and NPR. Ferguson was part of the notable band No Knife, and today I added multiple sources to that band's article which I believe establish its notability through WP:BAND criterion #1. As a solo artist, Ferguson has been noticed by critics, and won a San Diego Music Award for best pop album. Although much of the notability is local, that's not entirely the case, and in my view there is enough here to keep a separate article about him. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A few local sources about a band do not make each member notable enough to warrant a separate article; notability is not inherited. The fact that only local papers could be found is also an indication that the band is not notable, let alone the individual.  Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation is not an indication of notability. - SudoGhost 17:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources I added were not about his band; they were about his solo career. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are still insufficient for establishing notability, they would be useful for verification, but not to justify any kind of article. - SudoGhost 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Slightly weak-ish Keep per Paul Erik. There is some coverage, though much of it only points to local notability. I think Paul's various sources just about add up to scraping the bar at WP:MUSICBIO, though. — sparklism  hey! 13:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not indicate the breadth of scope required for WP:MUSBIO, and being a former member of a notable group does not imply individual notability.  Mini  apolis  17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:BARE. He appears to meet the criteria for touring. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria for touring at WP:MUSICBIO requires sources showing non-trivial coverage, all the article has is a single source with a trivial mention that he opened for another band. They did not headline that tour, nor did any sources give any non-trivial mention of their participation of that tour. - SudoGhost 17:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to No Knife, does not meet criteria for individual notability. J04n(talk page) 22:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: This deletion request has been closed as "Keep" twice before by two different editors and those decisions have been reverted by the involved editor SudoGhost. An admin should close this as a "speedy keep." The article added local sources to show local notability (item 7, in notability requirements). For the record I've never heard of him or the band he used to also tour with but the San Diego Tribune has and those sources are present. The Keep arguments are overwhelmingly more compelling than Delete arguments. The article appears well written with sources and consensus is to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
 * Given the lack of any clear consensus, NAC is inappropriate here, and per the discussion on my talk page you admitted to using a non-administrative supervote rationale that completely ignored any discussion here. The fact that it was a non-administrative close means it was not an administrative action but a bold edit, so it was reverted per WP:BRD.  There is certainly not any clear consensus to keep the article, and "well written" yet again is not, under any circumstances, any reason to keep or delete an article and is irrelevant (also where is the consensus that it is well written?  A close should reflect consensus, not a supervote opinion).  WP:MUSICBIO #7 was never once brought up in the discussion, so where is this consensus that you used to close the discussion, as opposed to your own opinion? - SudoGhost 17:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned "supervote" at all. I assessed and judged all comments against the criterion as well as the quality of sources and the article.  He meets notability requirements WP::MUSBIO 7, 10, 11 from the sources which overwhelmingly discounts the deletion arguments.  I am the second closer to have reached that conclusion.  You have reverted both of them.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show right now where there was any suggestion that he did or did not meet MUSICBIO 7, you've further demonstrated that you c,posed the discussion based on your opinion, not the discussion. Unless you can show any discussion that shows that the sources overwhelmingly discounted a single deletion argument, then you further demonstrated that you v.posed the discussion based on your opinion. This is exactly why non-adminstrators should not be closeing these types of discussions, because you have not demonstrated the ability to determine consensus, and your responses have in fact shown the opposite. You closed the discussion based on your opinion, and that is not allowed. Per Wikipedia guidelines. I reverted the close per WP:BRd, and there is no guideline or anything else saying that such is not allowed, so let an admin close the discussion. - SudoGhost 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No one cited any of the individual points so I presume everyone is familiar with all of them, though perhaps you are not. Discussion "As a solo artist, Ferguson has been noticed by critics, and won a San Diego Music Award for best pop album. Although much of the notability is local" - and from 7: "Has become one of the...most prominent (of a notable style) of the local scene of a city" - from 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" - the article is linked to by "The Sims 2" which demonstrated a song used as a theme, from 11 - "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." - from the references that were added, his song was played on a Southern California radio station.  Arguments that have asserted Delete  didn't say "how" he didn't meet the bar only vague references to WP:MUSICBIO.  Arguments for Keep used the actual requirements for being notable.  Again, I never heard of him until seeing this AfD but it's clear that the Keep arguments used the standards for notability.  That's a normal part of weighing consensus and the arguments of consensus.  Another editor, that you reversed, came to the same conclusion.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm truly baffled how you claim that nobody brought up individual points, yet the keep arguments used them. while somehow failing to bring them up. Every time you respond you make it more clear that you used your opinion in lieu of an actual close rationale that used consensus, because you're using rationales that contradict themselves and are completely lacking in the actual discussion.  But more importantly, you should not be closing these types of AfDs.  You are not an administrator, you are not permitted to do so.  It doesn't matter how flawed or perfect you believe your assessment was, you are not qualified to do so in the first place. - SudoGhost 05:11, 16 March 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.