Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miirrha Alhambra


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Miirrha Alhambra

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable pianist. Could find no source establishing notability. A google search (either by his real name or stage name) only returns Wikipedia mirrors or memorial sites. Damiens .rf 15:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. twirligigLeave one! &#8900; Check me out! 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep New York Times citations are given for the article from 1928-1932. The article could be expanded with material not available online from France, Germany, South America and Mexico. I don't know the contributor who started the stub, but it needs to be expanded. Doc &#9836; talk 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Time citations are just trivial mentions about her playing somewhere. Her work wasn't notable enough to be discussed. --Damiens .rf 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references mentioned in the article are not available online, so it's not surprising the nom can't find them. Find A Grave is a site dedicated to graves of what are usually considered famous people. While it is not reliable in itself since it relies on user contributions, it clearly shows information for an article is available for those who look close enough. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you asking us to keep this biography based on what her relatives wrote about her on Find a Grave? --Damiens .rf 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above...I've seen enough there now to warrant inclusion..but it can use some more help..Modernist (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on "per above"? I could find no convincing argument for keeping above. --Damiens .rf 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * see above - New York Times citations are given for the article from 1928-1932. I don't accept your opinion: The New York Time citations are just trivial mentions. Modernist (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2009 (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.