Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evalyn Parry

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. — _Maggot ^Syn 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Evalyn Parry (edit | talk | history  | protect | delete  | links | watch | logs | views) (delete ) – (View log)

Try and stick with me on this one as it might get a bit hairy. I don't believe this page passes WP:BIO. The sources given are only links to the specific festivals, none of which seem to be very notable in themselves. Also, the "gay twist" presents a bit of a NPOV problem in the beginning of the article. Her albums are non notable as they are not connected with a major company so that fails WP:BAND. Her written works have recieved little to no coverage so the article fails in that aspect too. There are no citations given too. Delete Undeath (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep: Has written plays, received awards, released records &c. "Her written works have received little to no coverage": Coverage of Clean Irene and Dirty Maxine, Coverage of Francis Mathilda & Tea I don't suppose she is a major figure and the article is badly written but no reason for deletion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. I immediately recognized the name. Has won non-trivial awards and is widely known. Article needs some revamping, but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Article does need some cleanup, certainly, but valid sources are available. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• The nom did not make clear what search strategy was used for researching in advance of this AfD. There are articles in The Georgia Straight [1] Vue Weekly [2] Xtra! [3] the Edmonton Journal [4] the Toronto Star [5] – all found with a quick glance at Google News search results. Keep per WP:N, or WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

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.