Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Teitel

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, as the article has been sufficiently cleaned up and reliable sources have been demonstrated to exist —αlεx•mullεr 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Teitel[edit]

~~This is blatant advertising to me: mass links, writing, bolding.~~(not anymore) It fails WP:MUSIC too, no coverage in reliable sources, only trivial mentions in media according to [1]. Cenarium (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - it seems like there are enough non-trivial links out there, once you wade through the repeated info/MySpace stuff.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails ~~WP:V, WP:BLP~~ WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO. dissolve ^talk 09:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the article was very recently created, and has not had a chance for improvement. Certainly it needs a heavy dose of cleanup. But there is one featured article about her in the mess of links, and a CBC radio profile entry. I've tagged the article as unreferenced, and think that providing some time to find references would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a couple of valuable links indeed, they say that she'll be prominent in the future. WP:N says "significant coverage in (preferably multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it would be hardly satisfied. She may however be fully notable in the future which makes me vote weak keep be neutral after all. I'll try to clean this up tomorrow. Cenarium (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, maybe two or three months will help to figure things out about her notability.Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've cleaned up the article so it doesn't read as much like a press release puff piece. I've also added references and was able to track down the Toronto Star article alluded to in the text and incorporated it as a reference. On closer examination, the CBC radio profile is actually just a copy of her web site profile, but that is more than offset by being written about in the Toronto Star, which is a major daily newspaper covering the Greater Toronto Area, so still a weak keep (leaning to the keep) for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With only one reliable source as a poet[2] and one as musician[3], the references do not meet the requirements of multiple sources per WP:MUSIC as a musician or WP:BIO#Creative professionals as a writer to me. A couple self-released CDs available online with no record label or tours scheduled also gives me no indication of any "future prominence". dissolve ^talk 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are multiple reliable soureces about the subject of this article. The fact that they are about different aspect of her work is irrelevant. The primary criteria from the General Notability Guideline doesn't split a person into different activities. The other criteria are specific guidelines to assist in determination of notability and are a supplement to WP:N rather than superceding it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Star piece isn't even about the subect, it's written by the subject. Having a byline in a newspaper doesn't make one notable. The only other reference is a free community newspaper. Hardly "significant coverage" per WP:N.dissolve ^talk 11:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although that wasn't the argument you put forth that I was responding to. I'd still prefer to see the article given a chance to have additonal referencing so still a weak keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (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.