Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Worthley

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. Synergy 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Worthley

Rebecca Worthley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lots of name dropping, but no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This may even qualify as a borderline G11 speedy. Might be salvageable if all the promotional words are removed and someone finds some sources for any of these claims, but, as it stands, comes nowhere near pass notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the the references presented, I'm changing my vote to Neutral. Mentions in the local press still isn't that good claim to notability, but the Radio 2 airtime might count in her favour. Most definitely needs all the peacock terms removing though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete;(changed !vote, see below) I agree with both of you. That's easy! But especially all that name-dropping, that's just not good. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added several sources just now. There are non-trivial mentions of her in the newspapers Express & Echo, The Herald, and Western Morning News, enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - concerns seem to have been addressed. WilyD 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as sourcing had been addresed. Still needs to have some peacock removed, but definitely salvagable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:N. Beano (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Changed vote from delete. Sources now prove notability and the reason this was nominated is addressed. Beano (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--yeah, I'm changing my mind also. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have withdrawn my delete !vote but am still not entirely sure this rises to the level of notability we expect of biographies. (Still thinking about it.) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep. I think it establishes clear notability; it's sourced very well. I think she's not very well known yet, that's all. Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórasimowixerafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo Bjornovič 09:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.37.47 (talk) [reply]
  • Note - just for an informational note, the above entry was made by a blocked sockpuppet account. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:54, 26 October 2008 (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.