Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bek Coogan


 * 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. Seems like as the discussion moved on, the evidence for notability became clearer enough to establish a keep consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bek Coogan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This musician appears to have received next to no personal coverage. Of all the sources provided, only one can be considered independent (and that's about the orchestra in general); everything else is agency profiles, concert promotions, or passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although she is on the edge of being notable. I found and added a couple of reasonably good independent sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Keep; the article was created by a first-time user at an edit-a-thon I ran, based on whatever sources were available online at the time, and the user has not yet edited again – I'll suggest she improve it. The performer is notable, and will undoubtedly have offline profiles, music reviews, and other such reliable sources. Let's not delete the first effort of a new Wikipedian. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Being nice is not a criteria for keep, sadly. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about moving it to draft in that case, as a middle ground? That affords the opportunity for further collaborative improvement without (possibly) clashing with mainspace requirements. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added a ref and did a count. Aside from band promo and brief mentions, we currently we have two short profiles specifically of her (AudioCulture is extremely reputable, not "concert promotions"), lots of bio info in an NZ government-funded arts page (sure, some that has been supplied by her, but it's an official resource site not a vanity page, and it lists two other reliable independent sources), facts about her in three newspaper articles, and quotes from a (reliable, independent) edited book she was featured in. Also there's a video interview from (reliable, independent) TVNZ series The Gravy of her in the external links which could be added as a source if someone were to watch and cite it. That seems a lot closer to notability to me. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added more sources, including another radio interview, an MA thesis, and news story. There seem to be plenty of RSs now. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete (or draftify) - This one is a close call but I will have to side with the nominator. Coogan's article may have been created by a new editor in good faith, but it looks like an attempted promotion because it merely repeats information from a parade of brief event announcements and professional directory entries. Some of Coogan's bands have received notice, but she is only ever listed as being present, and coverage of her art career is mostly routine announcements. It may be too soon for a Wikipedia article now but that could change if any of her endeavors achieve reliable and independent media coverage. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is notable in several forms (ukulele, other music, drawing and comics) and appears in a number of RSs. MurielMary (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide specific examples from that "number of RSs". ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Three Words (book), AudioCulture, Pulp, Photofile – see article. Sufficient numbers of reliable sources clearly exist (WP:NEXIST) and don't all need to be cited. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep It doesn't look like a WP:BEFORE was done before nominating. Artist has been written about in many significant national publications. I've added to the lists of publications and further reading - these could be used for references when expanding the article. --  haminoon  ( talk ) 00:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination was reasonable I think, but referencing and notability assertion have been improved since then. Even then, having worked on a lot of NZ articles, this was and is pretty good on the scale and significance of coverage available. No evidence of self-promotion or very tangential/listing coverage, and the references to band/group membership mostly seem to highlight Coogan's involvement as significant and notable. --Canley (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.