Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Houghton (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. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Tiffany Houghton
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

No WP:SIGCOV in independent sources, article is entirely promotional. All of the sources used in the article are connected with the subject. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify: Persons seems notable. Article can be improved in the draftspace.Shahoodu (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:MUSICBIO. Draftify if the consensus is that more work is needed beyond normal editing processes. There's plenty of evidence online that she is notable: 121,000 followers on Facebook and 85,300 on Twitter; toured nationally; myriads of downloads. The sketchy sourcing is the issue. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per above. Sourcing really needs to be changed.
 * Without finding RS that cover the topic, the above "Keep" !votes have a highly flawed rationale. See WP:INHERENTWEB: followers ≠ notability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I have no issue with notability, and the article has enough referenced support to clear that bar for me. I also don't understand why the nominator deleted a paragraph after the listing for AfD - I'd have preferred to have the community judge the article as it was, even if something was found to be wrong with that paragraph.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is very promotional material, even with an editor having been through and deleted some of the content. This article needs to be deleted as it seems beyond rescue and if the article is to be created, it should be re-written in draftspace. I would even go as far to say this is WP:PAID, looking at the citations and language used, as well as the major contributors being new editors or unregistered users. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would, however, support a revert to this version, as this was the version kept after the previous AfD. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 18:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Promotional material. Kolma8 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom .   all but  promo  Samat lib (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2020 (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.