Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas McCarthy

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]