Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was KEEP - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication it meets WP:Bio or WP:NPOV. Even if the several paragraphs of complaining about anti-folk were deleted, I'm not sure if the article has enough real, notable information to justify keeping. Strachkvas (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here's a 1987 profile in the New York Times. Add other search terms like anti-folk, and sources appear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are sources on Google Books: Billboard 23 Mar 2002[1], Spin Sep 1990[2], New York Magazine 12 Sep 1994[3]. Plus NY Times and AllMusic. Also, I tidied it up and deleted the rant about antifolk which had no place in an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fair enough, I didn't do enough proper research to determine if the subject was notable. In its current form I believe the article is acceptable — thanks for helping to clean it up. Strachkvas (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2013 (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.