Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Askew


 * 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 redirect to Kajagoogoo. Nothing sourced to merge. A bold redirect is an appropriate alternative to deletion. It only needs discussion/consensus if it's challenged. So while, yes, this should have went to proposed merger talk page discussion instead of AfD, it's moot because the actual violation of procedure was reverting the redirect without any opposition to warrant the discussion. Trouts all around. czar  01:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Steve Askew

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability outside of band, a search only reveals sources relating to Kajagoogoo. Normally musicians without individual notability are redirected to band per WP:NBAND, but this redirect has been challenged, therefore I'm starting this AfD to get the opinions of the wider community. Hzh (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Kajagoogoo: Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A search of Google, JSTOR, ProQuest and UK newspaper only returned mentions in relation to the band. Search of UK Charts in WP:GOODCHARTS did not return results. As nominator points out, WP:SUBNOT says, "material about individual members of a musical group are normally merged into larger articles about the group." Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kajagoogoo per WP:SUBNOT. I would have said merge, but seeing as the content is entirely unsourced it would require someone to first find appropriate sources for the WP:FANCRUFT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Why was this brought to AfD rather than requesting a merger? Surely we don't want a redlink created here. Chubbles (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure for articles that have show no notability. AfD allows editors to decide whether such articles be deleted, redirected, merged, or indeed kept. Wider range of options, also generally attracts more participants, therefore preferable. Also pointless to only discuss merging content that is completely unsourced given that unsourced content can be deleted in any article. Hzh (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd argue that's an abuse of process; it's scope creep for AfD when we have other processes specifically set up for them. This process is set up to decide whether things should be redlinks or not, and this title clearly should not be. I suppose it's moot now that the proceedings are happening, but it's unfortunate to see so many things that really shouldn't be at AfD cropping up at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All this shows that is that some editors think that their pet subjects deserve to have articles when they may not. There are many notability guidelines on whether a topic should have its own article, and rules and guidelines also exist on sourcing of content, particularly for biography of a living person. Such policy (WP:V) and guidelines (WP:N) are central to the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia with verifiable content on subjects of significance, and some editors appear to think that their own interest on a subject trumps such well-established policy and guidelines. Well, they are wrong. Hzh (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad hominem, here. You'll note that I haven't voted "keep", since I am not myself convinced Askew merits his own article. The rest of the comment didn't address any of my argument, but it doesn't need to; it's irrelevant to the outcome of this deletion discussion (and I am not particularly interested in continuing it elsewhere). Chubbles (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironic to claim argumentum ad hominem when you were the one who accuse me of misuse of process when it is in fact the standard procedure based on well-established policy and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2020 (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.