Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Staunton


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Mary Staunton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - collaboration with John Prine, Rick Epping and Brendan Gleeson would seem to meet #6 on WP:MUSICBIO? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , it might if we can find refs for it, there aren't at the moment. Thanks for looking at this, not an area I am that familiar with! Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I accept that the person is established as a musician, and has worked with serious players, but I'm not 100% convinced that this is enough, there's a touch of notability-by-association. But if referenced for the current content, I'd be OK, I'd rather have them in and build up the article if they qualify at all. Some creators really do need to be clearer on the "why notable" point. SeoR (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep seems to be part of the traditional music scene; not an extensive coverage [ https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/fingal/best-of-irish-music-tour/27784079.html], . These are better, , . Covered in a public radio piece I'd work some of these into the article if I was writing it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination per convincing comments above. Thanks, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. In all honesty, after my own WP:BEFORE, and while I am not minded to recommend deletion, I also can't advocate for a keep. Many of the sources that are available (including those listed by above) are largely trivial passing mentions. The only sources that I can find, which deal with the subject as a primary topic, are the same WP:INTERVIEWs we have in the article. Neither meeting the expectation of WP:IS. The regional news articles, which include the subject in the title and seem to offer a bit more (like "Mary Staunton brings top trad to the stage" (2010) Mayo Advertiser) are, in effect, ROTM gig announcements. Not in-depth/independent/biographical coverage. The (one-off?) collaboration with Prine/Gleeson/Epping doesn't meet my understanding of WP:MUSICBIO (musicians play on each other's albums all the time - it does not make them an "ensemble" in the meaning given in WP:BAND). "She once collaborated with someone famous" is, I note, the first example given in WP:INHERITED. And, as has been noted by, the related assertion/text isn't wasn't supported by a verifiable/independent source either. Anyway, even though it seems like the article is unlikely to be deleted (and I'm not necessarily arguing that it should), as noted by others contributing here, the sources/etc are a little on the "weak" side. To the extent that, if kept, I do not know how that "WP:PRIMARY" tag can be removed. Or how (absent independent/reliable/verifiable sources) we can expand the article beyond the few sentences we have... Guliolopez (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2024 (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.