Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Cantelon

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cantelon

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

Not notable outside Christian groups. Has had no main stream success, and is signed to minor independent record labels. Andrew Duffell (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Can't see any other notable facts about the band.scope_creep (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have current coverage and past coverage to meet GNG and WP:MUSICBIO clause 1. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't rely on ghits for notabilty. To establish notabily here, the sources need to be directly linked to the article contents. No ghits in the current coverage has links to the article. So don't count as sources to establish notability. All the past coverage ghits only discuss Ben only in his pastoral duties. In summary, there is no single primary source that makes this article notable. If I'm sounding harsh, then sorry. scope_creep (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not sounding harsh at all--you're sounding like you don't understand what WP:GHITS or WP:N actually says. Sources that exist don't have to be added into the article to demonstrate notability--"notability" exists per topic based on RS coverage of that topic, not whether or not extant RS coverage is currently reflected in the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome should be the same as for Tim Hughes' AFD, sicne they seem to be colleagues. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. Has Canetlon won a GMA Dove Award? Hughes has. It's entirely reasonable for Hughes' article to be kept while this one is deleted or merged. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources linked by Jclemens. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established by reliable, independant published sources. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 2 September 2010 (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.