Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma J


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Gemma J

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable musician who doesn't meet WP:GNG; article has a single secondary source, plus a bunch of primary references to television program competition episodes (she didn't win). The single instance of charting, not even on her own song, is not prima facie evidence of notability (WP:MUSICBIO standard only says "may be notable", and this is one case where it clearly isn't). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree, I don't think she meets notability standards. Bali88 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I take the view that, having charted as featured artist of a charting hit and now being a member of a group, WP:MUSICBIO applies.-- Laun  chba  ller  07:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Launchballer is the creator of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – The subject has contributed to a single charting song and made brief reality TV appearances. As pointed out by BlueMoonset, the article provides only one reliable secondary source. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, in my opinion. 97198 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability, It seems notability is so hard to find everyone's resorted to citing other wikipedia articles instead .... – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the DYK discussion of this article and that was brought up at that time. Apparently they aren't attempting to cite the wikipedia articles themselves, they are citing the shows (which I believe is allowed), they are just including the wikilink the same way you'd link something in the article body. Occasionally I see people do this--they include a wikilink in the citations. (It annoys me. If you want to wikilink something, do it in the body of the article. Don't make it look like it's an online source when it's not.) Anyhoo, I just thought I'd clarify in case an editor read this and voted to delete on the basis of that. They aren't citing wikipedia. They are citing the show. Bali88 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That does make sense to be honest, Meh I disagree with citing wiki articles but ah well. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisting as cocked everything up, See for the reason. – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  14:34, 21 September 2014 (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.