Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Hill


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Emma Hill

 * The result was   delete. Valley2 city ‽ 07:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * RelistedI have reversed my decision in order to relist in light of the changes made by Paul Erik in order to allow people to weigh in on them. Information on the reasoning can be found at the bottom of my talk page Valley2 city ‽ 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable from a non-notable "record company", possibly autobiographical. Bothpath (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: a lot of the content appears to have been simply cut-and-paste off the http://www.emmahillmusic.com/pages/bio.html website. Not sure there is enough to warrant a G12 speedy. JamesBurns (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no sources, no notability established... DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no reliable independent sources, possible self-promotion. JamesBurns (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - I was only able to find 1 mention in a reliable source and it only consists of an announcement about an upcoming performance. No significant 3rd party coverage. --  The Red Pen of Doom  05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * still not convinced that minor coverage, based on press releases, in local papers is "significant coverage". -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete one source does not notability make, as they say Vartanza (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added more sources just now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With two articles about her in the Anchorage Daily News, and one in the Vacaville Reporter that I just added, I'd suggest a keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no link for the Anchorage article, but the Vacaville Reporter (so minor of a paper that it doesn't have its own Wiipedia article, just a page with a list of small papers owned by a parent company) looks to be nothing more than a republished press release, thus failing the independent and nontrivial clauses of notability guidelines. Local papers don't go very far in establishing notability for an encyclopedia anyway. Notable entertainers would have picked up more coverage than that. In fact I have relatives who do local gigs and self-produce albums who clearly do not meet notability standards who have better local news coverage than that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading your comment and looking again, I must agree with you about the Reporter article sounding like a press release, so I have removed that one. In the meantime, I found one other article in the Daily News. With the two fairly lengthy articles and one brief article about her, I was able to add some more verifiable content, and there is more from them that still could be added. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2 city ‽ 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What, we have to vote Double Dog Dare You Delete for the delete we already voted on to actually go through? If the person ever becomes actually notable then recreate the article, there's no need to drag this out. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had added sources fairly close to the end of the discussion cycle. I thought it was enough to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO; you disagreed. That's fine, but I do not see the harm in asking others to weigh in with their own opinions about this disagreement. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That relisting was entirely warranted. Everyone who called for deletion before said the article had no reliable sources when what really matters if such sources exist. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Also found this, so at least she has received coverage in two sources.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are more than four references on the web to my mum and that does not make her notable. Trevor Marron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Sweet, have you made a wiki article for your momma then????   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but here we're talking newspaper references. Also, you didn't mention where those references to your mom came from. I'm mentioned around the web dozens of times, but I'm not notable because non of the references are reliable . - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actully all references to my mum are to mainstream UK newspaper articles. It is still not enough to make her worthy of a Wikipedia page. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above.--Unionhawk Talk 20:35, 30 April 2009 (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.