Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moller (2nd nomination)

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. Article has been significantly expanded since nomination. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Moller

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Page has simply been re-created with no references still, some ten years later! I gather the creator intends to use the enternal links as refs at a future date, but the BBC link isn't anything usable as it just lists a handful of songs that have been played on the radio (presumably BBC Scotland). Beyond mentions on some blog type websites, Google doesn't bring much up on this artist. Todmuggins (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: to notify the article creator about this AfD. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously as the article creator I am going to say Keep. I believe the sources, particularly the two BBC ones, comfortably establish notability. It is an untruth to say Page has simply been re-created...; I did not even look at the deleted version from ten years ago but have based the article on more recent sources. --John (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough for WP:MUSICBIO now. Curdle (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced that the sourcing adequately meets GNG. The nominator's rationale is incorrect, as John notes above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 19 July 2018 (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.