Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Scott


 * 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon Scott

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The band he is best known for playing in might be notable, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient references to establish notability for him alone. RadioFan (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - WP:MUSICBIO isn't particularly demanding; it's apparently one of the few cases of inherited notability, where releasing "a charted single or album on any national music chart" creates a presumption of notability for each of the creatives on that album. I can't find any evidence, though, that Souvlaki charted (though it may be it did).  It may also be that Souvlaki, or a single from it, "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network", which again would create the presumption of notability.  But again, I can't find sources to support that.  So, weak delete, but if anyone can show me the album charted or a song from it got radio play I'll change to a keep. Given the substantial fan following I'm surprised at not being able to find the sources. - DustFormsWords (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep - Slowdive's album "Just for a Day" peaked at #3 in the UK Indie charts, which entitles each member of it to a presumption of notability under WP:MUSICBIO. Given that the band appears to have a substantial fan following and its albums are widely lauded I don't see any reason to rebut that presumption. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would have suggested merging, but he has been a member of at least two notable bands, so best to keep this separate.--Michig (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why was this relisted? There was nothing but Keep arguments above the line. In any case, still Keep for the reasons set out in my comment above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2009 (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.