Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Brooke

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Brooke

[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)

Non-notable local musician. Coverage is local only, with no charted singles. Typical coverage here: [1], rest is social media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Original author of the article here. I would argue she meets the notability criteria defined in WP:MUSICBIO with widespread national attention, touring, releases, awards, etc. However, I failed to include most of this information in the original article, which was just a stub. I've already added a bunch more content and refs, I'll try to get this fully polished in time for the deletion deadline. DallasFletcher (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If you share the best WP:THREE you are aware of here, it will enable people to make an informed !vote sooner. CT55555(talk) 05:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished another round of updates. The page is still a bit thin and needs more work, but hopefully this new content is enough to convince that she meets WP:MUSICBIO. DallasFletcher (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on these new sources provided, she meets MUSICBIO.Pershkoviski (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:MUSICBIOas well as she is a Non-notable local musician.--Monhiroe (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added since nomination (especially WGLT) – and this good profile not yet used – suggest this passes WP:MUSICBIO. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2023 (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.