Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Hope

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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Hope[edit]

[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)

~~Entirely unsourced~~ BLP where subject herself appears to have written majority of the content in non-encyclopedic promotional tone. ~~Likely fails WP:NPROF and WP:NMUSIC.~~ Appears to be textbook case of WP:NOTCV. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the sources which were surfaced below, as well as improvements to sourcing to the article since this nomination, I withdraw claims of "unsourced" and "lack of notability". I am even tempted to withdraw the nomination entirely, but the promotional language inserted by the subject still seems to be a notable problem to me. Maybe draftify? Or delete without prejudice for recreation? I'm really not sure. Melmann 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept, I intend to continue working on it. Your major remaining criticism appears to be content-related: specifically the lack of NPOV via the earlier COI contributions. I am willing to reduce these non-encyclopaedic and promotional sections.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done my bit. I believe it is more neutral and better sourced. Some content from COI contributor remains at about 10% but its tone has been checked by me to reduce promotional and unencyclopaedic tone. I'm moving on.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The claim that she was head of the school gave me pause, but based on Google Scholar [1] she will fail WP:NPROF and WP:NMUSIC. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Setreis (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple-award winner per this, articles about or by artist here, 62 works by artist here. She was the featured subject of a broadcasts on ABC radio per 1, 2, 3, 4. The wp article certainly has issues both COI and poor and/or self-citing but the subject is nevertheless notable according to WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)11:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning two APRA Art Music Awards makes her notable enough for me. Boneymau (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Actually she has won three: 2011, 2014 and 2020 (latter shared).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above 2 keep votes. Awards are significant and meet the requirements of music bio guidelines. Lesliechin1 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A review of the sources cited and awards won indicate that this is a notable subject. These are enough to at least pass GNG. Luciapop (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO have been met thanks to the improvements to the article that were made by Shaidar cuebiyar WP:HEY. Netherzone (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved with extra content supported by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed. Also she has won multiple notable awards so that WP:NMUSIC is also passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, now meets WP:MUSICBIO. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (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.