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 no consensus. Horrible article with hardly any sources. Given the low participation in this debate, no prejudice against another nomination soon. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Westwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Not finding any evidence of significant independent coverage of this musician. No significant reviews of his music or book. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria..
'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself'
The article lists two books that he's been published in or covered in
'Has won or been nominated for a major music award (...)'
Paul was made an Honorary Associate of the Royal Academy of Music in 2006.
There's at least two of the criterion right there where he meets it. The article is ugly, needs a major clean up... but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2019 (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.