Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Rosewoman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Scientizzle 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Michele Rosewoman
Calling all Jazz lovers! I suppose some of these claimed collaborations might make the subject notable, but I know none of the musicians involved. I do know that the article lacks sources. Delete, pending those. Xoloz 21:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep A quick google search indicates that this person has published 6 CDs under major labels(criteria for WP:BAND). Sources are needed, but you're expecting too much out of a stub. When googling can find sources, you really shouldn't nominate for deletion. A few news Items I found regarding this person.
- All about jazz newsletter
- Chicago Tribune
- NY Times review
- Jazz police magazine listing of performances
- All of those are recent. If no one else does, I'll adopt and source this article, but deletion seems inappropriate. i kan reed 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I created this article, and have provided my source and a partial discography. This should solidify her notability. (Mind meal 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
Comment these sources would have been trivial to find--easier than doing an AfD nomination. And the nom. was only 6 hours after the article was created. I don't make guesses in fields where I don't know the names. DGG 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not sure if the comment is directed at me -- I learned long ago not to trust myself evaluating music articles, so I freely admit I rarely bother with Google there. Nowadays, though, I also don't leave unsourced articles alone, even if I am clueless on the subject -- they need to meet WP:V fast. So, I send 'em to AfD, and trust the process to work. In this case, it certainly seems to have done so. Xoloz 00:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- But AfD is not the process for cleanup. --Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. It is a process for deleting articles, which would be done here, had sources not been brought forward. In this way, it is also a process for saving articles. Cleanup is very different from "causing to meet WP:V," the minimum threshold of being encyclopedic. Xoloz 06:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- But AfD is not the process for cleanup. --Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if the comment is directed at me -- I learned long ago not to trust myself evaluating music articles, so I freely admit I rarely bother with Google there. Nowadays, though, I also don't leave unsourced articles alone, even if I am clueless on the subject -- they need to meet WP:V fast. So, I send 'em to AfD, and trust the process to work. In this case, it certainly seems to have done so. Xoloz 00:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Whatever the case before, it most definitely looks notable now, with references. RFerreira 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand per RFerreira. --Myles Long 19:48, 12 May 2007 (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.
