Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Bashaw

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 delete. bd2412 T 03:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Bashaw[edit]

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

Little indication of importance. The article uses peacock phrases and a search for sources suggests that the subject fails both notability for musicians standards and the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 18:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Fairly blatant vanity article. All four provided links are broken (and old). A google search provides the usual listings with promotional and trivial coverage. However, the subject has released on two major labels (Vanguard and Atlantic Records), which count for something. Problem is I haven’t found third party coverage to verify the significance of these—only her own promotional material. Her AllMusic entry is trivial. If someone can scare up some actual sources beyond fluffy hometown newspaper coverage, it may be worth saving with re-writing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in the absence of sources showing she passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Ping me to reconsider if sources come up though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no indepth coverage. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:43, 14 September 2017 (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.