Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Rogers

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The result was withdrawn. CiphriusKane (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Kate Rogers[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)

WP:BEFORE revealed a lack of significant coverage, and while there are some album reviews there's hardly anything of use in those. Also unsure if she passes or fails WP:NMUSIC, especially as all her albums were released by labels that she has some connection to CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Album reviews count toward criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO if they are non-trivial (by music review standards, i.e. not press releases, aggregation, just tracklistings, etc.), independent, and from reliable sources. Such reviews are used less for biographical information and instead indicate that reliable publications have deemed the subject notable. I found several of these:
The Guardian
Exclaim
Rogers' website mentions the existence of additional reviews in NME and Q Magazines, also reliable and prominent national music publications.

In addition, I found other, more biographical coverage:

Sunday Times feature (paywalled)
Feature in Waterloo Region Record
Manchester Evening News feature

I am not sure what you mean by "labels that she has some connection to." All musicians have a connection to the labels they are signed to, by definition, and Grand Central Records is a legitimate, notable label. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant she had a personal connection to the labels, being either the label owner or the cousin of the label owner CiphriusKane (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, because I started incorporating material found by Gnomingstuff as well as another article from Exclaim!, so based on those sources, she appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO#1, as noted above, and per WP:MUSICBIO#6, she also appears to be a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Beccaynr (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Perhaps User:CiphriusKane can withdraw. Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 3 October 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.