- 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. The consensus is that this individual does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article, with most of the sourcing being about his work in the band rather than him as an individual. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Paul Koehler
- Paul Koehler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting for further consideration because my first nomination failed to generate any participation at all after two relists, and an editor is resisting any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect 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 — this article is relying mainly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few appropriately reliable sources are not about Koehler per se, but merely namecheck him within the context of the band. 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 Wikipedia: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) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- DELETE - This person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The references which were accessible or still there lack any extensive coverage of Paul.- McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There's sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. And in borderline cases, the decision should be not to deny readers the content, which won't be available elsewhere.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish any 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) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald ( here I am) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- delete - Only one of the listed independent sources is actually about the person (a very short interview). The others are either self-published, blogs/forums, or about the band silverstein. @Wehwalt: "Content not available elsewhere" should not be in Wikipedia in the first place, as per WP:OR. -- Latebird ( talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Lack of in-depth coverage of Koehler, independent of the band. Merge anything useful to Silverstein, but there's not enough otherwise to meet WP:NMUSIC or CREATIVE. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 23:17, 2 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.
- 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. The consensus is that this individual does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article, with most of the sourcing being about his work in the band rather than him as an individual. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Paul Koehler
- Paul Koehler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting for further consideration because my first nomination failed to generate any participation at all after two relists, and an editor is resisting any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect 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 — this article is relying mainly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few appropriately reliable sources are not about Koehler per se, but merely namecheck him within the context of the band. 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 Wikipedia: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) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- DELETE - This person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The references which were accessible or still there lack any extensive coverage of Paul.- McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There's sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. And in borderline cases, the decision should be not to deny readers the content, which won't be available elsewhere.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish any 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) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald ( here I am) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- delete - Only one of the listed independent sources is actually about the person (a very short interview). The others are either self-published, blogs/forums, or about the band silverstein. @Wehwalt: "Content not available elsewhere" should not be in Wikipedia in the first place, as per WP:OR. -- Latebird ( talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Lack of in-depth coverage of Koehler, independent of the band. Merge anything useful to Silverstein, but there's not enough otherwise to meet WP:NMUSIC or CREATIVE. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 23:17, 2 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.