Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carryl Varley (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 no consensus. no consensus after three weeks JForget 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carryl Varley[edit]

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

Appears to fail the applicable notability guidelines WP:ENT and WP:NMUSIC. I have not been able to find significant coverage to meet the WP:General notability guideline either. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this (since the article claims 2 charting singles) I don't see any evidence in reliable sources to prove that she was actually involved in those productions. Example searches: [1] [2] [3]. Notability requires verifiable evidence. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search shows this, which appears sufficiently reliable/independent. I'd presume there's a second source and/or better sources for some of the other claims in the article. Agreed that it's a mess right now, but the subject appears notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this appears to be the full text, which doesn't appear to establish notability in my view. What do you think? --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:17, 24 May 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) 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable person, failing WP:ENT and WP:N. Has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the one link given here seems like some kinda profile thing. Without significant coverage, cannot meet WP:BLP requirements, therefore deletion is the best option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 31 May 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) 00:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 June 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.