Kristen Lawrence: Given the subject's BLP status and possible issues regarding quality of sources, there are several moving parts here and I think it would be best to open this to the community for discussion.  AfD participants should consult talk page for arguments made therein.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Music .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Source 19 and 28 are fine.  It's not a slam dunk, but that's just enough coverage to build an article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "arguments" given on the talk page are over 10 yrs ago, I wouldn't count the online chart as notable.  I'll give them the paper sources existing (I can't confirm or deny), but the rest don't seem to help the discussion here...  The last point in particular doesn't seem to hold true (I don't see this person has become notable for Halloween music, a decade after the comment was made), and it was iffy then...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that source #19 for Keyboard Magazine is now defunct and the link just goes to the mag's general website.  If it once had a precise article on Ms. Lawrence, I cannot find it online.  Source #28 is functional and it is a local newspaper article; it's reliable but one of very few such sources.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keyboard Magazine archive link.  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The "Keep" vote above is based on about 1.5 reliable sources (see my comment above) and I cannot find anything else significant and reliable beyond the Daily Pilot article that is currently at footnote #28.  Regarding the talk page discussion, the named chart does not qualify, and Ms. Lawrence could be considered "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" under WP:NMUSICIAN , **IF** Halloween Carols are a notable genre, and that is not convincing.  Otherwise she is a working musician with various symphonies and has focused on some unique personal interests, but that does not make her notable enough for an article here.  This article is dependent on personal and self-promotional sources, and tries to fill space with desperate leaps of notability, such as being mentioned in the same magazine as someone loosely affiliated with Iron Maiden or being asked to comment on someone else's book.  She clearly does some unique things, but sorry no cigar.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b.  Yes, too many primary sources are used, but independent profiles in the Orange County Register and Los Angeles Times a decade apart (plus Keyboard Magazine ) are enough for BASIC.  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By BASIC, do you mean GNG?  If so, GNG's not enough.  She also needs to meet WP:NMUSICIAN .  GNG is only for topics which don't have their own notability guidelines.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I mean WP:BASIC (basically GNG for people), which is sufficient for notability: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below .  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is untrue, GNG applies to every single topic not covered by a SNG which is stricter than the GNG (mostly NCORP and NEVENT ).  Mach61 ( talk ) 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Um...that's what I said: GNG is for topics which don't have their own guidelines.  This article, being about a musician, would fall under WP:NMUSICIAN .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not correct.  WP:NMUSIC does not overrule WP:GNG .  Any music artist can be kept by passing GNG.  In any case criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC is exactly the same as GNG.  The only SNGs that overrule  GNG is WP:NCORP which is stricter, WP:ACADEMIC which is looser, and WP:NEVENT that may be stricter in some circumstances, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) Keep per Oaktree b ; meets WP:GNG .  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If passing GNG is all it takes, why are there so many different notability standards?  I keep seeing this idea that "it meets GNG; ergo, it's automatically notable across the board."  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see even a rough consensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Excessive reliance on sources like PR Newswire and Facebook.  If kept, take a flamethrower to the unencyclopedic language and poorly sourced content.  BD2412 T 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG per the analysis provided by Oaktree b.  Some cleanup is needed to remove some puffery and remove some of the primary sources but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  User:Let'srun 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Fair warning: if this gets kept, I'm stubbing TF out of it.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: I have, in another editor's words, "taken a flamethrower" to the fluff and questionable sources on this article.  There's...not much left.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - assuming the article will be edited to remove unsourced content, blogs, CD liner notes, press releases, social media, etc, there does not appear to be support for notability according to any guideline, based on other available sources, because this appears to be WP:PROMO : brief 2011 local coverage about a concert series for children; 2010 interview with Keyboard Magazine promoting brands of instruments; 2009 interview with the Orange County Register ; a 2012 KPBS event listing with "You can also listen to Poe set to music by Orange County's Kristen Lawrence" at the end of the list; and a 2018 local news interview reprinted in the LA Times mentioning an upcoming performance and recently-released album.  What seems to be missing is substantial independent, reliable, secondary coverage to support WP:BASIC / WP:GNG , or reviews or other substantial independent coverage of her work to support WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO notability; an article based primarily on what she says about her work does not help develop a neutral and balanced BLP.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:25, 23 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus