Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffey Anderson

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coffey Anderson[edit]

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

Not notable. All references are either self-published or social networking sites. This article was changed from a redirect to a full article by User:CoffeyAnderson, which suggests a conflict of interest. Coffey Anderson was a contestant on a game show (WP:BLP1E), and currently has a few sentences in Nashville_Star_(season_6)#Coffey_Anderson. I think those few sentences should suffice. SnottyWong talk 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of significant notability. I agree that a few sentences in the relevant Nashville Star article season are enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this person does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO and should therefore be deleted. Smartse (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable. He is not just a singing contest participant as suggested. In fact he has independently released four separate albums, mostly written by him and enjoys great popularity for many years now. The article is also way different from the original text suggested and greatly improved. It is substantiated by many independent references as well werldwayd (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Were those albums released by a major label or one of the more important indie labels, as WP:BAND criterion #5 stipulates? — Gwalla | Talk 20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources on gnews. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources on Google News (for instance, here) actually do suggest plenty of notability. I've pruned the article a bit. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (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.