Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BriBry

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BriBry

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep signed with polar reliable source teneighty Jonpatterns (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per these [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] - Not perfect but it's better than fuck all. –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Signing with a publishing company does not make the subject notable. The coverage is not sufficient either to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No proper notability it seems. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't mean to be picky but notability has been proven. –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 1 April 2015 (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.