Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Bower

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Bower

[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)

A recent post at BLPN brought me to the article. Reviewing the existing sources, I'm not convinced that this person is notable independently from the bands they have played in - searches for sources brought me a few interviews, but nothing secondary, reliable and substantial about the person. The search was slightly complicated by the existence of other people of this name, but I'd be happy to withdraw if good sources are uncovered. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to have done lots of stuff, but there is not much independently about him. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I haven't found any sources that indicate the subject being notable enough for a standalone article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. possibly might meet WP:MUSICBIO, but can't tell as there are not enough citations or info available.MartinWilder (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect / Improve? There's discussion on the talk page for this deletion (probably meant for here). The current problem could be resolved by finding enough sources that cover the subject in specific detail ("not it"). Seems like the dude's paid his dues. So if not, I think WP could be better served by a redirect (to what, exactly?) than with an outright deletion. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WexfordUK (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 February 2022 (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.