Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dajae
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. JForget 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dajae
- Dajae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not enough there (one tiny paragraph) to constitue it's own article Alan - talk 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems like a perfectly good start. Polarpanda (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- article fails WP:STUB "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Alan - talk 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Article Meets one of the criteria you listed for deleting. "or if its subject has no inherent notability". This article shows inherent notability with the line "In 1996 her hit "Day By Day" hit #1 on the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart.". Yes, it needs to be sourced, but it is a stub, and is not subject to deletion. --talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Article Meets one of the criteria you listed for deleting. "or if its subject has no inherent notability". This article shows inherent notability with the line "In 1996 her hit "Day By Day" hit #1 on the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart.". Yes, it needs to be sourced, but it is a stub, and is not subject to deletion. --
- article fails
- Strong keep I don't like how the nominator changed the reason his reason for deletion. Most articles start out as stubs. This article has met notability requirements. talk) 03:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- where did i change reason? i responded to reasoning for it to comply with ]
- Keep. Article is candidate for expansion, not deletion. There is likely enough material from Billboard magazine alone to help build up the article. Gongshow Talk 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:MUSICBIO under point 2, at least, does it not? Cocytus [»talk«] 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. This nomination is a waste of everyones' time. Following WP:BEFORE before nominating it would have avoided it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (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.