Talk:Deborah Anderson

message: I have worked on the article, expanding the content and additing citations, to address notability concerns. I consequently have now removed the notability warnings and the prod tag. Deborah Anderson was the featured vocalist on a single that charted in the UK (WP:MUSIC notability criterion #2), as well as on multiple projects released on major labels (which I think, in itself, represents some case under WP:MUSIC #5). Her other work has garnered her some press coverage, which represents a case under general WP:GNG criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work; it's definitely a significant improvement! However I still don't think notability is proven. Even as a named artist, having one apparently non-notable single reach #26 is not sufficient to show notability. I looked at the references provided, and none appears to have "significant coverage" of Deborah Anderson herself. Only one has more than a brief mention of her and her work, which is solely about her book Paperthin; if notability can be shown for that book, perhaps this bio could go under the book? Are theinsider.com and Boutique Design reliable sources? --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick initial response... WP:MUSIC criterion #2 requires a release that has made a national chart. A single reaching #26 satisfies that; that's how I've generally seen that criterion interpreted. The complication here would be that the single was "Alex Reece Featuring Deborah Anderson" rather than "Deborah Anderson". It seems odd to me to suggest having an article on Paperthin which then includes a bio section. Given her other activity, retaining the article on Deborah Anderson and covering Paperthin seems neater; and a Paperthin article can be created re-directing here. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm "charted" is a little ambiguous but I think you're right, she definitely qualifies under criterion #2. It seems to me to be a crazy criterion, but here's not the place to argue about that. Sorry about the discussion, I find the music notability criteria difficult to apply. I will remove the tag. --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you that the WP:MUSIC criteria have their oddities! Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think with the improved version of the page after my research project, we have satisfied any lingering notability concerns that may have existed 10 years ago, plus the notable work that Deborah Anderson has done in the last 10 years or so. DIFF. Thanks for your help, Right cite (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of notability

message: See MOS:SEEALSO. A See Also section should include only links not already in the article. I think this applies to links in templates as well, though I don't recall seeing discussion on this.
It appears the See Also section was created to create a full list of works, redundant with . --Hipal (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , with DIFF. Right cite (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also section