Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Mier

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 no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Mier

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Esprit15d as nn-bio, but that was contested by Colin Kimbrell. Colin's reasoning is pasted below. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Martha Mier: Seems fairly well-known and prolific as a producer (writer?) of sheet music for piano/organ. 31 author credits on Amazon [1] for various sheet music collections. Not entirely convinced of notability, but at a minimum should go to AFD rather than speedy. -Colin Kimbrell 14:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep seems notable in her field Jcuk 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all this for 2 lines of text... nn. Elfguy 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable for composed song. Krashlandon (e) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Looks reasonably notable, but I'm not sure what guidelines would apply to a writer of sheet music. Ergot 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and stub. This is one of those situations that falls outside the criteria WP:MUSIC was designed for. She seems fairly notable within the realm of sheet music publication, working on the Alfred series of piano tutorial books.--Isotope23 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - questionable notability and hardly worth keeping as an article, it's too short to even claim to be a stub. Get rid -- Death Eater Dan 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I even have several doubts about her notability --Angelo 04:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Fairly notable in her field, even if completely nn outside of it. Maybe in the future, the folks at WP:MUSIC might want to look into amending their stuff to cover situations like this.--み使い Mitsukai 06:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Can't establish notability, two-line substub with no reasonable prospect of expansion. Delete without prejudice, i.e. don't slap a G4 speedy tag on a recreation of the article which includes proper assertions and verifiable details. Stifle 13:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, for the reasons I had stated earlier. -Colin Kimbrell 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability is possible, but has not been established. -- Pierremenard 22:55, 13 February 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.