Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gin Cooley


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Gin Cooley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, WP:MUSICBIO. References used are largely self-submitted works to the like of Flickr, Youtube and Facebook. Hack (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There are only 4 sources that are pages operated by the subject. The other 24 sources consist of various sites. Not to mention several are being added on a daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelyduckling (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Lovelyduckling (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.10.109 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — 71.88.10.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. None of the references are reliable sources. References listed are 19(!) sites promoting her songs, such as Amazon, Grooveshark, iTunes and Youtube. There's also (as mentioned above) some sites run by the subject, as well as some blogs and picture collections advertising her as one of several candidates for something called "Hometown Hotties". Also, there is a single reference which only points to an image from google image search. Not even close to WP:RS, so delete the whole thing unless someone can provide sources and show notability! Bjelleklang -  talk 21:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There don't appear to be any verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - other than the fact that the article miserably fails the manuals of style in almost every way, none of the sources seem like reliable sources. Can't see how the subject meets WP:GNG. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not think it should be deleted, I think it just needs improvement. There are several 3rd party sources. Lovelyduckling (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2012‎


 * You need to understand that meeting WP:GNG can usually be done with 3-4 sources. Ref-spamming your article like you have today, does not help your cause. No-one is going to trawl through 50 badly-formatted references in the hope of finding one or two good ones. You are making it almost impossible for other editors to make an educated judgement about the article. You might think that by adding dozens and dozens of "references" that other editors will just "assume" WP:GNG has ben met and will consider the article worth keeping. They won't because you have to demonstrate that you have met the WP:BURDEN of proof and white-washing the article with rubbish "references" is not the way to do so. Would strongly suggest you have a read of WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:OWN and WP:MOS by the way. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as there aren't any verifiable and reliable independent third party references with significant coverage. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2012 (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.