John LeCompt: I researched the topic of the article, after doing comprehensive research on the band Evanescence for which the subject was hired as a tour musician in 2003 and exited in 2007, and found that: It does not meet WP:GNG , as it has not " received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. " The media coverage I found that mentioned the subject was largely routine , alongside some press releases ( WP:SBST and WP:NOTPROMO ).  I did not find significant converge that addresses the subject directly and in detail, and would provide sufficient content for a bio article that consists of more than "joined and left x,y,z band", "played/has a credit on x,y,z record", which is routine musician info that is mentioned in band or album articles ( WP:WITHIN ).  Notability is not inherited from being a member of or associated with bands.  Does not meet WP:NRV : " No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interested, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity ".  Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED : " Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. ... If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. " Does not meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, including "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."  Lapadite ( talk ) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Lapadite ( talk ) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Arkansas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6, is a member of at least two notable bands and a touring member of another.  See also WP:NSMT , an essay I wrote explaining why we have the criteria as we do.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There isn't " significant independent coverage " that supports that the subject is a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".  WP:MUSICBIO also states: " regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. ... notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources. " Nearly all the content on this article, which was added without sources by mostly one person in the 2000s according to the page history, can be deleted because there isn't independent, reliable sources to support it.  And there are bands linked in the article that are likely not notable either.  The little that is in reliable sources pertaining to this subject can be and is mentioned in a band article or album article, which mostly boils down to: "x joined in y year, exited in z year", "x has credit on y record".  There are other non-notable individuals associated with bands that are mentioned in the relevant band or album articles.  Notability is not inherited: Any given band being notable does not automatically make anyone and everyone associated with it a notable individual.  Any person getting " brief bursts of news coverage ", especially in relation to routine band news - such as a band releasing something, touring, the exit of a member - does not automatically make them a notable individual.  The other guidelines I linked also note this, such as, " the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity " in the main notability guideline .  Lapadite ( talk ) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens.  The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources, the MUSICBIO case is inarguable, and redirection per WP:NOPAGE is undesirable as there is no clear target.  Mach61 ( talk ) 04:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't misrepresent the sourcing in deletion discussions.  "The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources" - it is not, and that's plainly evident by looking at the references.  The few refs are about routine band news and an old Yamaha site with standard label/PR-fed content.  Nothing that remotely supports individual notability based on WP's guidelines.  From my research, there aren't multiple independent sources focused on this subject, not even from the early 2000s when he played on tour during the band Evanescence's major commercial success.  There are also several bands linked in this article that are not notable, and their articles are templated as such.  Lapadite ( talk ) 13:02, 22 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus