Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas McCarthy

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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas McCarthy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertation of individual notability, just the band he's in. No sources found, none in article. Redirection constantly undone by IPs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also couldn't turn up anything that would suggest notability for an individual. Paviliolive (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject's works apart from Nitzer Ebb appear to have received some attention, including solo, a "Fixmer /McCarthy" pairing, and a collaboration with Headman. These sources suggest that having an independent article on him is more optimal than outright deletion. Gong show 05:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Gongshow. It's marginal, but I agree that the subject's assorted other activities mean that a separate article will be more helpful to the reader than redirecting or deleting.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow. There is enough non-Nitzer Ebb work and refs to make an independent article worthwhile. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2014 (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.