Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Bryna (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura Bryna
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Duplicate recreated not notable singer - not a single notable charted song - the album that is added was also just deleted at AFD - It didn't chart at all. [Trying to Be Me - [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Patently obvious that the nominator did not read the article and is assuming bad faith — when I removed the A10 and explained to him that it didn't apply, he moved straight to AFD. The last version was deleted mainly because it was a copyvio, and those who !voted "delete" obviously didn't look hard enough for sources. Whether or not she charted is immaterial; the presence of multiple, third party sources (including two reputable reviews of the album and plenty of articles from Country Standard Time) should easily be enough for both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The previous article was properly deleted as an unsalvageable combination of copyvio text and heavy-duty spam. As I noted at the prior AFD, the subject appeared to be notable, satisfying the GNG, and TPH's overhaul has resolved the problems cited in the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Digging up a few trivial reports and bloating a not notable singers life story when they haven't ever charted falsely represents them to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What? It's possible to be notable and not have a charted single or album. I fail to see how this article is "bloating" or how the sources are "trivial". You're clearly disrupting to make a WP:POINT, and judging from your talk page, this isn't the first time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can attack me I care less. The single is not notable and claiming our lowest level of GNG because its the only hurdle she might scrape over is a backward step from the recent deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me how an article with 12 sources is a "backward step" from a complete copyvio with no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Calm down, everybody. I think she clearly meets the GNG through newspaper coverage and things like a New York magazine miniprofile, but there's nothing wrong with establishing notability strictly through the music press. Charting is significant because we infer coverage exists for a charting performer; it's not necessary in and of itself. The Velvet Underground were notable long before they charted, as were Patti Smith and the CBGBs crowd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/criterion 1 of WP:BAND. I see no reason to delete. Charting is an indication of notability, but merely one of many; It does not follow that not charting is an indication of a lack of notability. Charts measure commercial success, and not every musician is purely business-focused - many critically-acclaimed artists with plenty of coverage have had little or no chart success..--Michig (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Charts or no charts, the singer has been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources as listed in the article itself and in the additional refs provided by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above, which satisfies the requirements of the general notability guideline. 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If your a singer and your music isn't notable and you have to gain entry through a few comments and promo articles its a sad song indeed. WP:GNG Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that in most cases, a release on a notable label is sufficient even if the album doesn't chart. It is possible for a musician to be notable despite never charting an album; you may believe otherwise, but WP:BAND makes it pretty obvious that a charted single isn't 100% necessary, just reliable third party sources. WP:GNG trumps WP:BAND every time, and it's obvious she meets the former even if you don't think she meets the latter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you should take that up with the independent reliable sources who insist on generating third-party coverage of her despite her non-chartingness. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Nick Drake never charted in his lifetime, but he received significant critical coverage and was notably influential by the time of his death (a sad song indeed, but for a different reason). The early history of the ECM jazz label is a litany of notable, widely reviewed music that never charted. Libraries and bookstores are full of notable books that never approach the best-seller lists. Commercial success is sufficient to establish notability, but not necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to compare notability levels here to Nick Drake - The idea that this subject will ever be notably influential is a stretch of imagination. If she ever becomes that then I will vote Keep myself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep meets WP:MUSIC. Dragquennom (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Why would anyone even bother trying to AFD something with this many reliable sources clearly proving notability anyway? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. In addition to the sources that TenPoundHammer has found, there are others such as this article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this one in the Herald & Review, and this review in PopMatters. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep. TPH clearly is to be commended for the work he has done with this article. Notability has sufficiently been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Salute to TPH!  Cind. amuse  03:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Kinda surprised the 1st close was delete.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have to keep - While the Patriot-Legder (trust me, I used to live in Quincy) is the kind of newspaper the winos use to wrap their bottles with, and all the other sources are from some glorified country music blog, this is what scrapes by for WP:NMUSIC these days. A bit of WP:HOTTIE doesn't hurt either. Tarc (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * note - this although a well supported keep discussion and I accept the comments and the consensus completely I made the nomination in good faith and still personally hold the position for which I nominated her - sayiing that - I withdraw the nomination allowing it to be closed as a speedy keep or as the closer decides - Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 6 May 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.