Deletion of Lucy Carr

Comment: Passes  with charting and  with a lot of coverage about her. Since most coverage focuses mostly  on her relationship with Stringfellow so should this article. Wikipedia is not here to write your prefered version of history or to censor your past. Carr put it out there and supplied some of the gossipy details herself, as in {{Citation | last = Collins | first = Laura | author-link = | date = 2 May 2004 | title = STRINGFELLOW? HE IS JUST AN OLD MAN WITH A DISAPPOINTINGLY SMALL YACHT...  | periodical = The Mail on Sunday }} and {{Citation | last = Whitfield | first = Lydia | last2 = Mainwaring | first2 = Rachel | author-link = | date = 2 May 2004 | title = LUCY - MY SPLIT WITH STRINGY.  | periodical = Wales on Sunday
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: The subject was signed to a significant label, received coverage from the BBC and released two charting singles, so qualifies as . I would point the article's subject towards 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSBIO||WP:PROUD)

Comment: The article doesn't seem to violate  I think although the subject may not be very notable in the music industry. Is the information out of date? That's a hard call. However, if there are more recent sources for her, feel free to add them to this article and maybe this article can be kept. Having a Top 10 or Top 41 song does give one some degree of notability, I would think
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: There are sources which seem to suggest she meets the |general notability guideline, including but not limited to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-97112165.html this, http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/interviews/25-lucy-carr this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2654571.stm this, and http://www.musicomh.com/singles/lucy-carr.htm this. She also meets the guidelines at  by virtue of her charting singles. The inaccuracies that were present are indicative of lazy editing, but not a reason to delete the article, nor is the fact that the subject is no longer in the public eye. As TPH says, any problematic earlier edits can be del-revved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NMUSIC)

Comment: per , and I would say that whether or not Carr had requested deletion, so no OTRS validation is required for me to support deletion. Scraping into a music chart is not a strong anough claim of notability to mean that we should keep an article that was clearly created to spread tabloid-style tittle-tattle rather than for any genuine encyclopedic purpose
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: the subject meets the letter of , but I'd argue not the spirit of that guideline.  The majority of the coverage cited here is of the trashy tabloid variety that is factually disputed by pretty much everyone involved, presumably causes real world harm or distress to the subject, and probably shouldn't be included in the article at any rate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)