Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Nancy


 * 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. As below, quality sources provided, no need for this to run any longer. Seraphim&hearts; Whipp  16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sister Nancy

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

This seems to be an article about a non-notable musician. Doesn't provide any sources. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on sources: All music guide doesn't have a bio on her. Google is..well, tricky, because there's a great many occurrences of "sister nancy", some of which are definitely not the same person.  Also, for anyone participating.. please don't come to us with arguments of the form "Sister Nancy is significant because..." - this is not useful to us.  The only that's useful to us is independent, reliable sources.  Friday (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Keep per the ref's that have been dug out. Cheers Fram & Skomorokh.    Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 14:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, advertizing. I would have speedied this. It seems new information has come to light. Keep. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it seems to be a non notable musician. However, a five minute search with keywords provided in the article would have given numerous sources, like this complete Jamaica Observer interview and this short but significant mention in the Washington Post. Books claim that she was one of the first important female DJs on the scene. The Observer calls one of her singles a classic (the BBC calls it an anthem), which is also sampled on The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Considering that her heyday was way before everything was available on the internet, one can suppose that most sources about her are not online anyway. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the apparent existence of proper sources. Thanks Fram.  Friday (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to close as notability seems uncontroversial in light of the verified non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources uncovered by Fram. Skomorokh  15:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite in light of sources provided by Fram. The actual article is an atrocity in its current state.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  15:41, 15 July 2008 (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.