Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie D-Napoleon

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 no consensus. So Why 13:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie D-Napoleon[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. All references that approach meeting WP:RS are from the publication where her husband Brett Leigh Dicks (nominated separately) works. --21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Leivick (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Just at first glance I found this X-press article on her and this and this ... of course, we also have to be comfortable they are RSs ... is he there as well? And that was just at first glance; the ghit number is over 100,000, so there may be more.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to pass any of the points in WP:MUSICBIO. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave - Recorded and released three recordings nationally in Australia through MGM. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerthMusicMan (talk • contribs) 08:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which three recordings? I found that Here In California is only an EP, and was released on Foghorn Records (according to her website) and I couldn't find information on After the Flood and Leaving Me Dry. If those two were released on MGM that would certainly satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage appears to exist in reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. Besides the ones in the article, I found [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 1 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.