Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Keller

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Keller[edit]

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

non-notable BLP— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Bio and 9 album reviews at Allmusic, other coverage (snippets visible) via GBooks in Cadence, The Sonneck Society Bulletin, Blues Revue. --Michig (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She is a recognised authority on and curator of ragtime music and resources. She has performed internationally, and has been involved in many significant ragtime events. She is definitely a significant figure in this type of music.http://www.westcoastragtime.com/bios/bio.keller.sue.03.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everlong Day (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This may be true; however the link that you provided to back your claims is a self-promotional bio. It is not a reliable source removed from the subject. Anyone can state what you are claiming (and there are many who can); but does that make them notable at WP? No. Maineartists (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't put it in the article. It is there to be looked at and verified, wherever it comes from. Whatever the source, it throws some things into the mix, certainly enough to suggest that the article be kept.--Everlong Day (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it were verifiable, you would have been able to easily find sources to back the claims for your "strong keep" vote; rather than merely place a promotional bio directly linked to the subject themselves. I cannot find them; and obviously, neither can you. I'm sure there are many exactly like Ms. Keller in this similar field; but are not considered notable because of WP guidelines and requirements needed to be met under: WP:MUSICBIO. Resumes and bios need to be veried by reliable sources. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified by Michig such as 9 album reviews and book coverage, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2018 (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.