Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deidre McCalla

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre McCalla

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

BLP without decent references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Author Keep The nomination is refuted by the current status of the article. I don't really understand why this article was tagged. Chubbles (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An AllMusic bio and a short interview aren't quite enough to establish notability or base a BLP on, I'd say. Lennart97 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is fair, though not the case made by the nominator. McCalla meets WP:MUSIC bullet 5 (several releases on labels such as Olivia), and she additionally is discussed in a number of academic books and articles about lesbian music (try "deidre mccalla" in Google Books). Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - GNG generally needs to be met even if some criterion of an SNG is met, so if the coverage is indeed out there, I'd suggest adding it to the article and it would be an easy keep :) Lennart97 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not so; if GNG needed to be met, the SNG would not be necessary. This example is actually a great illustration of why the SNGs can be so important, such as for a niche musician from a pre-Internet era whose importance may not be obvious from casual Googling. The SNG (in combination with WP:V, though verifiability is not at issue here - her discography is trivial to verify) helps improve our encyclopedic reach in a way that a GNG-only standard might not (though she may meet the GNG as well; I see, for instance, that she was the subject of a profile in Hot Wire magazine in 1988, but I do not have access to a university library that would be able to grant me access to that title, at this time). Chubbles (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        NMUSIC states that a musician may be notable if one of the criteria is met, in the end it should still come down to coverage. If all the biographical info currently in the article can be sourced to more reliable sources than an Allmusic bio and an interview, that would make a pretty strong case combined with NMUSIC#5. That's just my opinion anyway, I'd definitely like to hear what others have to say on the subject. Lennart97 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article may meet WP:MUSICBIO, specifically criterion #5 may have been met, due to being on record label Olivia Records. which has its own Wiki page and may mean that it is a major label. Chelokabob (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on google books [1] seems to find plenty of sources. Obviously the stub needs work but it appears WP:GNG is met by significant coverage in reliable sources. W C M_email 08:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP needs actual references. The only one here is dead. Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't matter if there's an archived version available, and there is, so I added it. Consider doing so yourself next time using the Wayback machine. What does matter of course is the quality of the source. Lennart97 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on newly provided book citations by User:Wee Curry Monster. Chelokabob (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2021 (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.