Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonnie (Singer): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:47, 10 July 2010

Nonnie (Singer)

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

Contested prod. Article was speedied and deleted only a few months ago. All the sources appear to be unreliable and can find no reliable coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally tried finding references and could find nothing outside of World Book & News, which is a free press release site. Pianotech (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am starting to think that this is a bias judgment. As I have presented before the article should meet general standards as other articles, such as --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Villegas Concerning the source, while WorldBookAndNews does allow you to submit to the site, the submissions are reviewed by there editors and must be found truth and reliable before being posted on the site read up on there guidelines. Also I think it would only be fair for editors who have not been previously associated with this topic to post here to 100% bias free. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

reply The World Book & News front page says "Submit free press release. See your news here immediately." The singer could very well be notable, and I hope that is the case. I'm just saying that notability has not been demonstrated yet, imo. Pianotech (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply I understand that, but has anyone tired to submit anything there? It will tell you that artcle must be reviewed first and proven true before being posted on the site. Even TV news stations allow you to submit press releases, but that doesn't mean they should be looked at as unreliable. With all due respect for everyone commenting in here, I thought the artlce was fine with that tags that were previously placed on it, until more sources become available. It has only been what? A day since it's creation. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I will be leaving this up to the other editors that comment. I have tried so hard to get this article accepted, that I'm just done fussing with anyone. All that I ask is that the editors that were involved with the previous page stay out of this because I strongly feel there is bias with them. That is all. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Revision as of 14:46, 10 July 2010 edit Whitetiger01 (talk \| contribs) 88 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:47, 10 July 2010 edit undo Whitetiger01 (talk \| contribs) 88 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:*'''reply''' I understand that, but has anyone tired to submit anything there? It will tell you that artcle must be reviewed first and proven true before being posted on the site. Even TV news stations allow you to submit press releases, but that doesn't mean they should be looked at as unreliable. With all due respect for everyone commenting in here, I thought the artlce was fine with that tags that were previously placed on it, until more sources become available. It has only been what? A day since it's creation. ([[User:Whitetiger01\|Whitetiger01]] ([[User talk:Whitetiger01\|talk]]) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC))		:*'''reply''' I understand that, but has anyone tired to submit anything there? It will tell you that artcle must be reviewed first and proven true before being posted on the site. Even TV news stations allow you to submit press releases, but that doesn't mean they should be looked at as unreliable. With all due respect for everyone commenting in here, I thought the artlce was fine with that tags that were previously placed on it, until more sources become available. It has only been what? A day since it's creation. ([[User:Whitetiger01\|Whitetiger01]] ([[User talk:Whitetiger01\|talk]]) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

	:*'''Comment''' I will be leaving this up to the other editors that comment. I have tried so hard to get this article accepted, that I'm just done fussing with anyone. All ~~that I ask~~ that I ask is that the editors that were involved with the previous page stay out of this because I strongly feel there is bias with them. That is all. ([[User:Whitetiger01\|Whitetiger01]] ([[User talk:Whitetiger01\|talk]]) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC))		:*'''Comment''' I will be leaving this up to the other editors that comment. I have tried so hard to get this article accepted, that I'm just done fussing with anyone. All that I ask is that the editors that were involved with the previous page stay out of this because I strongly feel there is bias with them. That is all. ([[User:Whitetiger01\|Whitetiger01]] ([[User talk:Whitetiger01\|talk]]) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC))