Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Steel


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that she does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. While it has been argued that the sources presented are enough to pass GNG, Cunard's breakdown shows that the sources are not particularly helpful in establishing notability or even just being particularly reliable. While she may become more notable in the future, we must wait until more coverage in reliable, independent sources (and not just interviews or tabloids) exists.  — fetch ·  comms   03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Laura Steel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

My prod was removed, so I'm sending it to AfD instead. Subject appears to fail notability. The only reliable source provided does not link to the actual reference but to the front page, the others are primary sources and a link to a Twitter page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC) *Delete for failure to meet WP:ENT. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. With added refs, article passes muster. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as someone who had marked an earlier version as A7, I don't believe Ms Steel meets the GNG at this moment. Given some time, perhaps but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Syrthiss (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete:editor added a "reference," but it's only an interview from just before she performed at a festival. That alone is not enough to meet WP:GNG.  Some might argue that appearing on a national chart qualifies under WP:MUSIC, but I certainly don't believe that project specific notability guidelines can override GNG.  Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Just to let everyone know I've added some third party reliable references to the article and done a tidy up. IJA (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to confirm that the new references don't change my vote; one is from the home page of a football club, and thus isn't an RS; the other is an interview and thus, while coverage, doesn't rise to the level of significant coverage. As Esteffect says below, this is "too soon."Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as it passes WP:MUSIC. Number 2 in WP:MUSICBIO it says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". She has had a Number 5 single and there is a reliable third party reference given to prove that. This proves that it passes WP:MUSICBIO therefore we should strongly keep this article. IJA (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The chart referenced is not a significant national music chart. The song didn't make the UK Top 40, so inclusion on a Music Week industry chart (which many, many non-notable artists feature on) is not an assertion of notability. The fact that the article seems to attempt to assert notability by listing notable musicians that she has a similarity to indicates to me that this is a case of too soon. The sources used for reviews and the like also look to me like the article has PR/advertising connotations. Esteffect (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Allowing time to evaluate the added sources. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I think the sources that have been added are (just about) enough to pass WP:BIO. I found a couple of others, though they're not particularly good:,. It's a borderline case, which I wouldn't mind being deleted, but I think there's enough to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I added the daily mirror reference to increase the reliability of the sources. IJA (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Esteffect; article fails WP:MUSICBIO because Steel did not appear on the UK's "national music chart." Uncle Dick (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Laura Steel drops in for a quick chat! – this is an interview that consists solely of Laura Steel talking about herself. Per Notability (music) #1, "[a]ny reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising" does not qualify in establishing notability. 2. Laura Steel interview – this is also an interview that consists solely of Laura Steel talking about herself. As noted above, per Notability (music) #1, this does not establish notability. 3. This review from a source that is dubiously reliable contains little biographical information about Laura Steel. It is a short review of one of her singles. 4. http://www.sufc.co.uk/page/Promotions/0,,10418~2104710,00.html – Titled "Our Laura", the source says "Our fellow Blade, Laura Steel who performed the greasy chip butty song at our open day last week, has released her first debut single "Feedback" - you can download her single at iTunes, Amazon and Play.com now and help a local girl get into the chart." This is clearly not a third-party reliable source. 5. Laura Steel's Feedback at number 5 in the midweek club chart – a short article in the Daily Mirror, a tabloid, is not a reliable source. A tabloid is not an acceptable source for a BLP. 6. Laura Steel interview – this is the same link as #2.
 * Keep - Now, I'm all for removing articles, but this artist has started to become popular and get presence on radio and across the industry; nothing huge and wild, but enough in my opinion to keep. It would appear that she has got some big remixes with prominent artists, such as Wizard Sleeve coming out soon- and no doubt will be popular. I would agree, it's a weak keep, but I feel it would be wasteful to remove an article before her popularity increases to a slightly higher point: a point "worthy of keeping". Davidlive (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources in the article appear to meet the criteria requiring significant coverage in secondary sources.-- Pink Bull  23:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.

I concur with that "[t]he chart referenced is not a significant national music chart", so Laura Steel does not pass WP:MUSICBIO #2. One of the sources provided by is this one, which does not establish notability per Notability (music) #1 because it consists almost wholly of Laura Steel talking about herself. The second source Robofish provided is in #5 of my analysis of the sources above. I have read through this Google News Archive search and have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about Laura Steel. This is the same with a Google search which returns mostly unreliable sources and the sources listed above. Because the sources in the article fail to pass the muster of Reliable sources, the article fails Verifiability. This article should be deleted for failing Notability (people) and Notability (music) and for violating Verifiability and Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2010 (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.