Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Maloney

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 as frankly I would've commented but this seems convincing to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Maloney[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence to substantiate article being written. Have ran a search and most websites are self created by the artist. Barely any articles on the act published by third parties. Epic Tracks (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just from a simple Google search (using the helpful "find sources" links in this AfD), I had no trouble finding reliable, independent articles that significantly covered the subject. I added four and removed some non-encyclopedic content while I was at it. True, the article still needs work, but what's currently in the article satisfies GNG.

Turning to the notability guideline for music-related topics, the subject meets MUSICBIO criterion 1 as a subject that "[h]as 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": at minimum, the Huffington Post blog and Boston Globe pieces meet that description.

Finally, I think it's beyond dispute that the subject meets MUSICBIO criterion 5 as having "released two or more albums on . . . one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." (She's released three albums on Signature Sounds Recordings, which was founded more than twenty years ago and, according to our article, has more than a dozen associated artists with solid articles.) Per MUSICBIO, that alone is likely to satisfy notability. Rebb ing 05:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage in the following newspapers: The Boston Globe [1], The Berkshire Eagle [2], The Republican [3], The News Eagle (a small newspaper in Hawley, Pennsylvania) [4], a short article in SF Weekly [5], and brief and peculiar coverage in The New York Times [6]. Also coverage in the following online magazines: Consequence of Sound [7], Elmore Magazine (an album review) [8], and short but flattering coverage in Spin [9]. Dontreader (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided here are unequivocally about her and are from reliable and verifiable sources. I fail to see the issue here. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely sufficient comprehensive coverage to meet WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2016 (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.