Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Schechter

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 redirect to Bee and Flower. (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Schechter[edit]

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

vanity piece, created by the subject; self-published references means WP:BLPPROD cannot apply. there are few or no reliable sources Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I declined the BLPPROD because the article was created before March 18, 2010 and has references; however, I recommended PRODing if deletion was believed uncontroversial. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bee and Flower, her band. That article is itself proposed for deletion, but consensus is tending towards keeping it. She's not notable apart from the band. (However if Bee and Flower is deleted, I'd suggest deleting this as well.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bee and Flower per Colapeninsula, assuming the band's page is kept; if not, then delete. Gong show 19:01, 23 May 2013 (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.