Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Crane

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Crane

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP non-notable requirements for WP:MUSICBIO Maineartists (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a clear WP:CIO with this article. Maineartists (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO via coverage in The New York Times ([1], [2]), New York Daily News ([3]), Rapport ([4]), Cadence ([5]), Jazz Times ([6]), BroadwayWorld ([7]), and Allmusic ([8], [9], [10], [11]). --Michig (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really? and that's all it really takes these days for inclusion at WP? an article that has only a lede and no content; which was started and continually monitored by the subject themselves, and the only notability claims are a Ponzi scheme and selling a piano? I'm sure all the countless musicians that have had 40 plus year careers that have been mentioned in newspapers yet rejected articles in WP for "non-notable" reasons, will be interested in this support. A quick google search of the name hardly even brings anything up for first hits except WP and Facebook. If this is a "keep", this article fails in all other aspects. Maineartists (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "an article that has only a lede and no content; which was started and continually monitored by the subject themselves, and the only notability claims are a Ponzi scheme and selling a piano?" - you are discussing the article, not the notability of the subject. We're not here to assess the quality of the article. The subject is notable. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respectfully disagree. Maineartists (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi Maineartists, please have a look at WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", also, i'm curious about your comment about "the countless musicians that have had 40 plus year careers that have been mentioned in newspapers yet rejected articles in WP for "non-notable" reasons", please leave a list of these musos on my talkpage (with news sources if possible) and i'll have a look at them for possible wikiarticles, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least two references provided above meet the criteria for establishing notability (NYT, NY Daily News, Broadway World). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is wonderful. I'm actually quite pleased that this AfD discussion is headed toward a consensus that I will be able to reference in the future. It's refreshing to hear the simple defense that I have been lead to refute by certain editors disqualifying on the very grounds you are now championing. Thanks. I appreciate your input. Maineartists (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure your sarcasm sounded better when you moved your lips while typing. Not appreciated here though. Your AfD would progress better if you made your arguments based on policy/guidelines. For example, what parts of WP:MUSIC do you believe this article fails? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Maineartists:, what you should learn from this AfD is that a deletion argument is not based on the lack of references in the article, it is based on the lack of articles in newspapers, etc that COULD be used as references. If you have seen articles fail at AfD it is likely because such newspaper articles could not be found, or they only mentioned the subject in passing, whereas the articles that Michig posted above are actually ABOUT the subject. Having said that, I have seen many deletionist editors put up articles for deletion that have plenty of valid references, so I do hear you. Robman94 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not arguing at all. There are dozens of nightclub / lounge singers that have more coverage than articles from 1989, 1990 and 1997 or notable within their fields for selling a piano and are on sites that are generated by reviewing sign-in users and not considered reliable (Broadway World / Allmusic) on WP for musicians. I'm just content with the fact that so many editors are voicing their support. Glad to see it. As I said, will reference this discussion when supporting others. Obviously, I should not have proposed this for an AfD. My mistake. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you do try referencing this AfD, or the presence of other articles, folks will likely cite WP:OTHERSTUFF in response. As for this AfD, if you have changed your mind, you're welcome to withdraw it in order for it to close. Robman94 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the articles that Michig found. The OP is correct about the article having a COI problem though, as it does appear that the subject has done most of the editing. Robman94 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2017 (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.