Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Litoff
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The result was Withdrawn, deferring to article state and WP:SNOW. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phyllis Litoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I originally prodded this shortly after it was created: subject does not appear to be terribly notable. Only references about her available were an obit and a brief blurb about how a hall was named after her in memoriam. Original author removed the PROD from the article, so I am bringing it here. I motion for deletion per WP:BIO. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She has a $24,000,000 building named after her at one the most famous music conservatories in America (there is considerably more press coverage of this than the blurb that was originally there.) There is also more coverage of her in the New York Times, than just her obituary, and an Associated Press article about her work at the Belleayre Music Festival, where a pavillion is named after her. See the latest additions to the article. I have to say that proposing an article for deletion within 7 minutes of creation, is pretty bizarre. It had at least two sources, why not give the creator a chance to work on it? It's not a very good welcome for new editor. Also may I ask if the nominator in this deletion discussion actually looked for further sources before nominating this? Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The New York Times doesn't write obits about nobodies. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - NYT obit as well as host of other refs is enough. Shadowjams (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (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.