Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breanne Düren


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈  11:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Breanne Düren

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a musician, relying almost entirely on primary sources, blogs and Twitter for sourcing -- out of the 16 sources in the article, literally the only remotely reliable ones are a 99-word blurb in a magazine and an article in Billboard which glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of failing to be about her. This is not how a musician gets a Wikipedia article -- WP:NMUSIC is not passed by asserting that it's passed, but by reliably sourcing that it's passed, and no RS coverage means no article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep.It's the existence of reliable sources that matters when we are judging notability, not how well the article is sourced, and you show no evidence in your nomination that you looked beyond what is currently in the article. A quick Google found pieces from American Songwriter, StarTribune.com, and Seventeen. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Here's another. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm agreeing with . Plus an informal test I have is readership and Breanne's page is getting 80 pageviews per day; while readership is not an official guideline at Wikipedia, my experience from many AfD discussions is that rarely do pages with such attention get deleted. Therefore, it is not worth my searching further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft and userfy as my searches found only a few passing mentions at News Books, nothing outstandingly convincing. Although viewers may be searching this article, there are no currently convincing signs of better improvements yet. SwisterTwister   talk  07:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You think this should be moved to draft space and user space at the same time? How would that work? Why do there need to be signs of improvement? What has that got to do with notability? Did you look at the coverage I linked above? --Michig (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles do not need to be constantly improved to qualify topic notability. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America1000 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and copy edit – Meets WP:BASIC per the sources provided above by . North America1000 10:29, 3 March 2016 (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.