Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryeland Allison


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryeland Allison

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested Prod restored after request at WP:REFUND. On the face, the subject reads as a Session musician for several artists/performers of notability. Considering the Specific Notability Guideline WP:MUSICBIO, I'm not seeing a substantiated claim of notability. Falling back to WP:GNG there's a bunch of interesting prose, but the sources do not back up the claims. We have 4 categories of references: Sites that are dead, Sites that do not mention the subject, Sites that list the subject (but in a very generic database maner), and interviews/ghostwrites of the subject.

In short, I'm not convinced that the subject's notability has been proven to merit a article here. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete I agree with the others in this discussion. On the basis of notability WP:N the article should be deleted. The sources are lacking, and the only contributor is the subject. I feel that this page is being used as a tool for self promotion. Pantherjag (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 15:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing the notability. The article is enormous and very detailed, but the sources are too weak for a keep. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 25 February 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.