Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Lawrence (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Lawrence

[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)

Non-notable model and musician; the closest thing to a hit she has is #15 on a digital-only Australian chart. Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Just by searching the artist's name, she has been featured on reputable sources such as Vanity Fair, MTV News, Elle, i-D, Billboard, Clash, and People. Despite her article not including several of these sources, she is notable enough to warrant her own article as per WP:BIO. While her songs have not charted on any notable charts, WP:SINGER states that the artist may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria, satisfying criteria 1 and 10. Looking at WP:SUBNOT, several sources have independently covered her work, including V Magazine, Billboard, Music Talkers, and Idolator. Deleting the article solely because of poor chart performance only negates the purpose of WP:N, which has been extensively covered in detail. The sources I have included here can supposedly be added in the article so that it clearly establishes notability from both WP:SINGER and WP:N. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a fair world this would be a delete, as this is little more than the offspring of two TV industry players who, through those connections, has parlayed it into a minor modeling career and even lesser recording efforts. There is no accomplishment that merits encyclopedic importance. And yet, the requisite press and attention that comes with this territory has been dutifully conferred, especially spiking with COVID-19 coverage and her unfortunate connection. Per wikipedia criteria, the RS coverage is there, per the keep vote above, and also prior AfD nominations that resulted in "keep." The article could certainly benefit from being expanded, although there is not much "meat" in the coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous consensus after the article was nominated for deletion in 2018. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple substantial reliable sources coverage such as Billboard, Vice, Clash, Elle, Vanity Fair, People and others. Also charting on a digital national chart is significant now that most music is bought digitally, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2020 (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.