Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan McCauley (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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Megan McCauley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Barely referenced article (References include Myspace and Wikipedia itself); Besides this, she is a unremarkable singer attached to unremarkable projects. Last time this was in AfD, it was argued that she has been included on various movie soundtracks. I have done my research, and I have found that those projects fail the music notability guideline themselves.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - just about meets WP:MUSICBIO, point 10: 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.' It's pretty marginal, but three songs in soundtracks of notable movies is probably enough to qualify. Robofish (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The articles for those soundtracks say themselves that none of the songs on the soundtracks are included in the movie, questioning the legitimacy of them. Either way, they did not generate buzz or chart, so they fail WP:NMUSIC themselves. There are no reliable sources showing, #1 Her involvment on the soundtracks, #2 The notability or legitimacy of the soundtracks, #3 Her notability in general. The article fails WP:N and WP:V, the two strengths Wikipedia was built on.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. We already decided this in 2005. There was an AFD on this article, the result was keep, and because notability isn't temporary, if she was notable then she's notable now. It's certainly possible that the sources that established notability then have since disappeared from the web, with the ironic result that the earlier nom has actually anchored the article, providing evidence that subject was notable at the time. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The musical works cited earlier that show her notability, fail the notability guideline themselves.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Inclusion criteria change over time, just because it was kept once doesn't mean that it should be kept now. She fails criterion 10 of WP:MUSICBIO, according to my interpretation of it. She comes close with criterion 5, but not close enough. Most damningly of all, I can only find trivial mentions in reliable sources. doom gaze   (talk)  17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Delete, an artist who has no charting singles and no specific mention in reliable publications is a breach of WP:BIO. Looking through the article, a lot of it is unsourced. Of the four sources: one is blogspot - it can be discounted straight away, the second is a myspace page - it can be discounted and the third is another wikipedia article - a big no-no. Notability established in a previous AfD does not stand as an argument for notability today. As it stands half of the information on this page should be removed as its unsourced. An article with this many redlinks and little coverage from third party sources provides little contextual signficance. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  02:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article has many issues that have not been adressed. No considerable effort to add sources since the last nomination. That may be down to the fact she has little mention in reliable sources - when she is it is nothing of encyclopedic value. Most of the information included is trivial. I do not think it meets the guidelines set on notability. Rain the 1  BAM 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, Article lacks the reliable sourcing to make her notable. In fact, I searched and cannot find any secondary sources which are reliable and are independent of the subject. Simply put the article fails WP:BIO. Truthsort (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I pretty much mirror the well said comment by Unique boy.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Insufficient coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 03:19, 12 April 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.