Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahita Bulmer


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete, but merge/redirect discussions should take place on the relevant article talk pages. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Tahita Bulmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I redirected this article and was reverted a few weeks later by an IP, with no reason given. I cannot see any independent notability here, and therefore suggest a redirect/merge with her band article, NYPC. GiantSnowman 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because many editors had contributed to the article over several years and then you took it upon yourself to redirect with no consultation with those editors or reached consensus anywhere that the article should be redirected.

92.8.25.148 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD. GiantSnowman 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect to her band, lacks independent notability. PETA and VIVA are not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was profiled in The Guardian and The Independent, two reliable sources, and Electronic Beats and The Quietus, two possibly reliable source. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to New Young Pony Club. Not enough sourced encyclopedic content for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2013 (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.