Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Queen


 * 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. Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Queen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not quite A7 material, but not notable either. ѕwirlвoy  ₪  05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nom ѕwirlвoy   ₪  06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it does seem like promotion by someone connected with her. The redlink original author seems to be a commercial operation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete There is one music review from The Sydney Morning Herald and apparently some off-line mention in The West Australian but I cannot find any other coverage to meet WP:MUSIC.  D OUBLE B LUE  (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --   D OUBLE B LUE  (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was a bit thin on sources when nominated but I've added a (fairly glowing) review from Allmusic and another from Popmatters. The SMH article is a good source, and I think this article is now just above the line as far as notability goes.--Michig (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There are some sources, but additional sources are needed. WP:COI is not a valid reason for deletion, although this is something we can't encourage. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sydney Morning Herald is valid source. Also added to article are two new strong sources; Manchester Evening Review from the UK and Triste Magazine review.  I feel this is above the line.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityandstatemusic (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The The Sydney Morning Herald piece is in-depth and demonstrates the passing of WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2008 (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.