Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Candy

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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Candy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Dhf510 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Not a notable person.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 2. Snotbot t • c » 06:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds. The nominator has failed to offer any reason to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little out of order, but the reason follows the nom's signature. czar · · 03:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She might not have charted, but a quick search shows that she's still being profiled and reviewed as a musical act. She's also been featured on the song "Cloud Aura" from Charli XCX's charting album True Romance. Burnberrytree (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Right now, this BLP of a musician leans on AOL, Vibe (magazine), Pitchfork Media, and her official website as the most reliable sources of information. Most of these are considered reliable for music-related articles as evinced by WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Unquestionably, the article needs work, but it's still a stub. I think the article needs to incubate, so we can allow time for more serious editors to spruce up the article and find more sources. I have no doubt that this could be on its way to a C or B rating within a few months. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2013 (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.