Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riki Michele

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. Week. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riki Michele[edit]

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

Non-notable outside of Gene Eugene. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. She is a key member of Adam Again, and yes the former wife of the band's leader. I didn't look for discussions of the subject in relation to the band, but I found entries in Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 1-56563-679-1.. Her own entry on page 590, comprising an entire column (which is my minimum consideration for notability if the subject was active during the time covered by the book, and she has gone on to do work after it was published). She is also mentioned in the two-page long entry on Adam Again on pages 22–24, in discussion of the band Duraluxe (a.k.a. Fluffy) on page 275, The Echoing Green on page 290, Michael Roe on page 773, Randy Stonehill on page 882, and Terry Scott Taylor on page 935 having performed background vocals for all. Much of this is supported in the credits at http://www.allmusic.com/artist/riki-michele-mn0001608480 which also lists credits on works by the Choir (alternative rock band) and Third Day. There are also the following: https://www.axs.com/riki-michele-sounds-to-be-at-peace-with-push-54009 http://popdose.com/cd-review-riki-michele-push/ http://www.tollbooth.org/2002/features/rikim.html http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2014/08/21.Riki%20Michele%20Launches%20Campaign%20For%20New%20Recording.asp all of which push it past the threshold of WP:GNG. If she merits a short bio at AllMusic, it makes sense for us to have one as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possible~~ Keep but if not kept, then redirect to Adam Again. I added one solid source; more such probably exist. User:Walter Görlitz The best approach to seeing whether she can support an article is for someone to expand and source the article, with the material you have found, but also with reviews and discussion of her work. The fact that sources for an 80s and 90s band may only exist on paper is a problem, but paper sources (like old news clippings) can be used..E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Removing my hesitation after fuller examination of sources brought by Walter Görlitz; especially the Encyclopedia of Christian Music.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The best approach is to discuss it. If the subject is notable then we keep the article. The state of the article does not confer notability to the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. You are absolutely correct. It's just that as a practical matter, I find sourcing more effective than arguing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (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.