Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Rhatigan

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Rhatigan[edit]

This person is non-notable, there are no working refs in the article, and wouldn't be appropriate if they did. IronDuke 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is an article from The New York Times that has Suzanne Rhatigan as the focus of an article[1]. However, I also found this[2] (she's 135). I hate saying this, but there is some sort of lurking notablity existing here, I just can't put my finger on it. Yanksox 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NYTimes thing is from 14 years ago (and covers many, many bands who, like Ms. Rhatigan, go nowhere), and the website you refer to (and thanks for actually taking the time to look) refers to her as "unknown." Did she chart anywhere? Influence anyone? Win any awards? It seems to me like we're entering a phase where people are notable if anyone has ever mentioned them in any newspaper, magazine, or blog, or they get over a thousand hits on Google (never mind that they're mostly WP mirrors) or if they're "clearly notable," like elementary schools. Sigh. I kinda thought this would happen, but it's still depressing. IronDuke 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying she's clearly notable, I'm usually in defense of deletion of schools and malls. Your suggestions are vague and can be expanded on anything. Just keep everything in mind and use policy *cough*WP:MUSIC*cough*. Yanksox 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your reply. I checked out WP:MUSIC. Does she pass any of those tests? I'm not sure what you meant about my suggestions being vague. What would make it clearer? IronDuke 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm being vague in a way, just read the policy and apply it here. Yanksox 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I guess you are being vague and I'm missing the point. You're saying the policy supports my position, right? Is that what the *cough* meant? IronDuke 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears tantalisingly close to notability but stops just short. Kavadi carrier 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Seems unclear... also references were added late, giving this another chance.W.marsh 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. The references establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:MUSIC, multiple independent articles where the artist is featured. -- Whpq 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. May be obscure today but was previously notable. If there was a NYT review there is probably more that can be added. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - vaguely notable for the Craig Charles connection, and there are some Web resources, although borderline on WP:MUSIC. Pete Fenelon 01:32, 13 November 2006 (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.