Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Crosby (2nd nomination)

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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Crosby

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

Examining everything here such as the current article and my searches (News and browsers), the 1st AfD and everything else, shows there's simply been no substantially better sourcing since 2011, all I managed to find, at best, were a few links since then. At best, this is still borderline as the longest works she's had as an actress was 5 and 8 TV episodes. She's only had 1 apparent album since that time, but there's also no substantial attention for that so the questionability still is noticeable. There's no inherited notability from working with other people and looking at the article's history essentially also suggests there's simply not a lot better. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usually when a musical artist has 60 pageviews per day it means they're connecting with audiences and they'll get mediaink. Sure enough -- sources include in-depth here and an article here and a profile in People magazine and do I need to keep looking? No. She meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the article could use an update with better sourcing - which do exist to meet GNG: The Huffington Post, Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, Teen Vogue, Blast Magazine, Conscious Magazine.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 13 August 2016 (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.