Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Roche

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Roche

Heather Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician, which contains potentially valid claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC but fails to source them properly: right across the board, the referencing here is to primary sources rather than to coverage in reliable sources which are independent of her. That is, performing with the Riot Ensemble can be notable if media are writing about the performance, but is not notable if your source is the Riot Ensemble's own website about itself; recording an album can be notable if media are writing about the album, but not if your source for the album is its own sales page on an online music store; writing content for publication can be notable if media independent of her are writing their own content about her writing, but not if your source for her writing is an article she wrote; and on and so forth. There's also a definite conflict of interest here, as the article has been edited by a user named Heather Roche -- and the anonymous IPs who created or edited this article before it got mainspaced also have a possible COI as well, as neither of them have ever made a single Wikipedia edit not directly related to Roche. Plus this was directly moved from draftspace to mainspace, without ever actually being submitted for WP:AFC review, by an editor with barely 50 mainspace edits in their entire contribution history. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. - TheMagnificentist 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have a comment to make here? Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot why I left that commentless comment but I think it has something to do with me seeing many sources that seem reliable, I don't know if they're primary though. - TheMagnificentist 18:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Nominator's reasoning sums it up well. In reviewing the sources we have listings for recordings at music download/purchase sites, a number of performance programs which is not unusual for any performance artist, a listing for subject's Doctoral thesis, a number of primary sources from subject or recording company. Although there are quite a number of sources listed, none seem to have the substance or independence to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 14:45, 27 February 2017 (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.