Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mya Byrne

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mya Byrne

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

I'm not a WP:BAND expert, but it doesn't seem like this article is any more than a puff piece. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles linked to in the article are insufficient to demonstrate notability, and there doesn't appear to be much other coverage around. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the poor editing of the article and sources sections thus far, some of the sources are indeed notable (eg the Illinois Times and the D'Addario endorsement). And, post-announcement, Mya has received some additional notable press in 2014: a SingOut magazine / WFDU-FM radio interview [1]; NJ alternative music Aquarian Weekly's mention of her as one of the 30 most promising acts of 2014 [2] and, perhaps more tangentially in terms of subject but speaking to notability, her poetry was just featured in the Advocate: [3]. This information can be added to the article by anyone as part of a much-needed edit overhaul. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have gone ahead and cleaned up/edited the article's references, adding links and marking uncited assertions as 'citation required,' and moving dead links and unclear sources to 'talk'. A few of the article's assertions (5) remain marked 'citation required' but a very significant number (15+) are now cited with notable, verifiable press mentions. Strikes me that the subject is increasingly notable and on the basis of that complaint the article is thus worth keeping. Can anyone speak in more detail to the other complaints on the VfD, ie use of external links, WP:COI besides the constant concern of self-editing, etc.?-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems much better after RyanFreisling's improvements, thank you. Assuming no other objections I am comfortable with this AfD being withdrawn. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CombatWombat42, for the kind feedback. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:02, 5 September 2014 (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.