Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chi Coltrane

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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chi Coltrane

Article fails WP:VER with only self-published primary resources. Subject of article fails WP:MUSIC,WP:BIO and with only 37,200 Google hits, it should be noted that some of those hits are from our sister project in Germany which has more material, same references being self published. Ste4k 07:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Suggest you look at the google results a little harder. I really don't know where you got the idea she wasn't notable, but this result, among many seems to indicate otherwise http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/coltrane_chi/bio.jhtml. Viridae^Talk 09:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not my job as a reader of an article to do the research which is not listed on the page. The article must establish such resources to meet WP:VER. Anything that is written in an article which cannot attribute itself to a reliable source is considered original research by policy, and by definition. Per policy, rather than guidelines, Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. thanks. Ste4k 09:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is your job as someone nominating for deletion to make sure the article warrants deletion. When using google result for deletion, it might be a good idea to actually look through the results. When a google search contains common words, you can expect millions of hits. When it doesn't - in the case of this name - you can't expect as many, so you are required to actually look at them to see wether the article actually lacks notability. Viridae^Talk 11:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Viridae, don't bother with AfD if the article can easily be cured of its sources deficiency. Be bold. SM247^{My Talk} 10:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and notable. Brian 12:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball
• Keep, the subject meets criteria at WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. I don't even have to read the article - the subject is easily notable per WP:MUSIC. If the article needs repairs, repair it. GassyGuy 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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.