Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mz Bratt

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. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mz Bratt

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics

)

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

It does not appear that this musician meets the criteria of

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wine Guy~Talk 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references in the article include significant coverage from the Guardian, and a Google News hunt turns up additional non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. I don't see how this fails to meet the criteria of
  WP:MUSICBIO. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: That's my fault, I didn't explain the nom very well. She has only released one single on a notable label ("Who Do You Think You Are?" on
  All Around the World Productions), although she is not listed on their website. She has also released a second single on a non-notable indie label ("I Like You" on UnX Records). In interpreting MUSICBIO, I pay attention to the wording: "may be notable ... at least one of the following"; in this case, I don't believe the "new artist" articles (like that in the Guardian) make up for the fact she hasn't produced much music yet. Wine Guy~Talk 09:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Ginsengbomb. She has had significant independent coverage from the Guardian and FemaleFirst, thus satisfying
  WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (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.