Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Wilson-Claridge

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 Rephlex Records. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Wilson-Claridge

No notability asserted. No sources. Unsouced crap-stub since July 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance for the subject of the article. The related record label may or may not be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I searched for sources for this guy, I saw that the label is notable for having mutliple reliable sources with significant coverage and releasing music from a lot of notable bands. Iowateen (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the record label. I can't find any reliable sources that show that he passes WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual himself is non-notable wrt WP:BIO, even if his business partner and their joint endeavours are. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is an interview with him:[1] and here:[2][3]. Brief mention in Village Voice:[4]. The record label definitely is notable, that article needs more sources. Fences and windows (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted to give people time to consider the sources noted above by Fences and windows, and to build the article with those sources if appropriate. Currently the consensus is not to keep this as a standalone article, and a deletion or redirect would be appropriate given the lack of reliable sources in the article itself. SilkTork *^YES! 13:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources. The first is subscription so I can't evaluate it but the 2nd and 3rd by no means constitute significant in-depth coverage of Grant Wilson-Claridge, one is about him but trivial and the other is not even about him, it's an interview with him about something else. Deletion or redirect is still appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.