Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwoman

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. Tokyogirl79 was researching sources, but six days have gone by and nothing has come up, so I'm going to call this a delete. If some solid sources appear, ping me on my talk page and if you can make a reasonable case, I'll reopen the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unwoman[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. While this artist has associations with other artists of note (like touring with them), notability is not inherited. The article has been tagged with notability concerns for 7 years; that's plenty of time to fix the problems. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pulling up enough commentary on the term "unwoman" as a whole to where this could probably merit its own article. (The term, not the performer. I'm still undecided on her.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how I lean here. I think that there's likely enough here to show enough for a weak keep, but the sourcing isn't the strongest. I'm going to ask around for some help looking for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches only found the exact currently listed coverage at News and browsers, local coverage and no other outstandingly convincing coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 16 December 2015 (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.