Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Myers


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Meg Myers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was dePRODed by creator but  still  fails to  meet criteria. Concern was: 'Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:BAND' . Further searches have failed to reveal more reliable sources in  number and scope. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:BAND. — Theo polisme  22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Possible keep - She has received some attention, with articles here, here, here and other probably not so reliable or notable links here. She has only released one album so far but receiving attention from LA Weekly and The Guardian is fairly significant and the listed articles offer some interesting details about her. I can continue searching and add them to the article later. SwisterTwister   talk  00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I performed another search (including at British sources BBC and Telegraph) trying to find other sources but I'm finding mostly blogs that probably wouldn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for sources. However, we should keep in mind that she is obviously starting a career so there aren't that many sources and she seems to be keeping a rather indie life at this time. SwisterTwister   talk  02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - As noted by SwisterTwister, there are a couple of independent reviews in major publications, technically meeting WP:GNG, and the Carson Daly bit appears to hit WP:BAND criterion #12. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Possible keep? - It is mentioned here by a Los Angeles FM radio station that "We've been playing her for months on Close to Home," and she is mentioned here in the official blog of PETA.  Are these significant to notability criteria 1 or 11 at WP:BAND? Kemery720 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Questions - Thanks for looking into this, SwisterTwister and VQuakr. I'm new to editing Wikipedia at this level of rigor.  I have a couple questions: Is it significant that she has been booked twice at The Viper Room in the last 6 months?  That's more than just a bar gig; that venue has a lot of prestige.  Also, is the following significant? She currently has 39 ratings and 9 reviews on iTunes.  By comparison, Christmas With the Beach Boys, a compilation of two previous Beach Boys Christmas albums, has only 31 ratings and 4 reviews.  I don't know if iTunes user response is significant at all.  Is this the appropriate place to ask these questions? Kemery720 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an excellent place to discuss and ask questions about Meg Myers's notability as defined on Wikipedia. In my opinion the radio station is too local for criterion #11 (which calls for a "major network," not an individual station) and the PETA reference is pretty trivial. Since notability is not inherited, what clubs she has played is only relevant if it has resulted in coverage by reliable, third party sources. Similarly, social network and user generated content such as Facebook and iTunes do not convey notability. VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * New Music Seminar - How about the New Music Seminar? She's listed in the "Artists On The Verge" top 100 chart and included in the compilation "New Music Seminar - Artist On The Verge 2012, Vol. 1".  The New Music Seminar, discussed in articles here and here, is a notable musical conference which focuses largely on up-and-coming artists.  I can't find a better source to provide evidence that a new and relatively unknown artist is, nonetheless, notable. Kemery720 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in addition to above coverage there is a review in Hobart Mercury (Australia), 24 march 2012 by Jarrad Bevan. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage in a wide variety of sources would seem to suggest that the subject passes WP:BIO or criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Particularly persuaded by coverage in The Guardian, LA Weekly, as well as a bunch of interviews . Gobōnobō  + c 05:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Debut album failed to appear on a national music chart, a review from "hitsdailydouble.com" doesn't seem worthy to be mentioned but nevertheless enough independent sources to be kept-RoseL2P (talk) 13:50, 22 December 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.