Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Fimm

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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Fimm[edit]

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

She has had some success, but I am not convinced she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is favorably reviewed several times in Billboard and also in the Charleston Gazette. She also profiled in both sources. I also found a listing in Keyboard magazine, but I don't have access. I added most of these sources to the article and expanded it accordingly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I'm convinced by Megalibrarygirl's great work on the article and both above comments. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 30 July 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.