Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Michalitsianos

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. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Michalitsianos[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician whose article makes no substantive claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC, and cites no reliable source coverage of any sort — its only source is a cursory mention of her name in a property sales listing, which technically doesn't even contain any verifiable evidence that the person named in that list is actually the same person covered in our article. (Just for the record, the article did have more sources in it in the past, which have been removed for various reasons over the past six months or so, but none of them were any more reliable than the one that still exists — primary or blogspotty, every last one of 'em — so none of them are worth salvaging.) The article was recently overwritten with an even worse, blatantly advertorial version by an editor who also replaced the redirect at Sol Seppy with a duplicate post of the same article, but the reverted version still isn't a keepable article in its current form (nor, for the reasons I noted above, in any prior version I could revert to either.) As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be suitably beefed up, but she's not entitled to keep an unsourced BLP just because she exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs way better sourcing - The Bells of 1 2 suggests she might be notable. But as a BLP it needs sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. Unless sourced soon, delete - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources.
Delete. Needs better sourcing to establish GNG. Z10987 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2014 (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.