Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Paradis


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Carly Paradis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

BLP-prod contested with the addition of a one-line IMDB entry. No notability shown. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Created page for Composer Cardly Paradis and added links/reference after. Passing the page over to Carly Paradis to update with references and citations. I have a picture but do not have wikipedia permissions to upload it. http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUzODMzNTczOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzY5NjgwNA@@._V1_.jpg Thanks. 86.18.1.20 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Links/references have been added. Is this page OK now to keep? It will be update over the next few days/weeks with information. Mrchrismurray (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Article was proded within a minute of being created, and was at AfD within a quarter hour. Seems a bit hasty and the article has been significantly improved since.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

* Weak Delete, marginal. Qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO #10 for the Moon soundtrack, but that criteria specificaly says it's not enough on it's own. Similarly, the Moon composition is arguable for WP:COMPOSER #1, but as it's the same thing I don't think this is enough. As it stands a delete, but a little bit more notability on something other than that film would tip it over.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My reading of the article and sources is that she merely arranged some of the music for the soundtrack, orders of magnitude less notable than actually composing it. nancy  16:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats not the same. There are other compositions listed now though (added while I was writting my comment above). Definitely makes WP:MUSICBIO #10 for playing on Moon, but needs a bit more with citations.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree re making #10 - otherwise we'd have articles for every session musician there ever was who played on a hit album; I'd have to be convinced that the performance was significant - major solo piece for example. nancy  16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article claims she played piano for the whole soundtrack, which I think comes under Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a [...] notable film. The film is definitely notable and she performed on it. However, that criteria also makes clear that it's not enough on it's own to establish notability. But if in conjunction with some others then would work for me. Work is still being done on the article so I'm going to come back in a couple of days and take a fresh look at it--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More info has been added with references, including previous work in Canada Mrchrismurray (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Work has been made since this Afd was put on. I say Keep now.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely a keeper. I wouldn't argue with Steven Seagal.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, wow, a stub with over 30 refs! I'm happy that notability has now been established. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the next step guys, how do we come to a decision and remove the Afd if it's decided to stay? Thanks, Chris.Mrchrismurray (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Typically an admin will review the AfD 7 days after it is opened, and will judge it based on the consensus and whether that is aligned with policy. Looking at the discussion above, I can't imagine any other result than keep, so I think you're fine to carry on editing the article on the assumption that the AfD will be closed in favour of keeping the article. Don't worry about the templates on the article, the reviewing admin will sort all that out when the AfD is closed. They should stay there in the meantime though--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, the AfD was already reviewed once on the 20th, and relisted as there wasn't a clear consensus at the time. It will likely be reviewed again on the 27th. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2011 (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.