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 speedy delete (G4) by Rossami. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Mewse[edit]

Gemma Mewse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Recently closed as delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Mewse, recreated from a subset of the sources used in the previous article, presumably the same rationale would still apply. May even qualify as CSD G4, I decided it was too borderline myself. I ask that if this is also deleted, that the article be salted. joe decker^{talk to me} 23:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, speedy or otherwise as non-notable. I tagged as G4 speedy, I don't have access to the old article, but the reviewing admin will and can make the determination. Regardless, I felt it was reasonable to attempt. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I feel that it is not quite close enough to G4 to delete speedily (although I would not argue with anyone so doing), but I feel that at the moment, she does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Obviously, if in the future she charts on an official chart, or meets any of the other criteria for inclusion, then the article can be recreated - but at the moment, no PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I carefully reviewed both the deleted version and the newly created version and found nothing that addressed the concerns raised in the first deletion discussion. In my opinion, it met the "sufficiently identical and unimproved" clause in CSD criterion G4. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nomination and as in original deletion discussion linked by joe decker above . Mewse might become notable if her upcoming album is on a major. Unfortunately, if this becomes the case all other unreferenced or badly-referenced fanpoop (see original upload of this latest offering) will be added on its back.

From the previous deleted page, (which I copied suspecting it would creep back), I can see that this current Mewse page, at its original inception version by specially set-up for the purpose User:Ughughugh, was a virtual copy of the previous article originated by User:Mdanie2/Gemma Mewse who changed his/her moniker to User:Mdanie2 to upload this. It is interesting that the first upload of the current page was very quickly trimmed-down by User:Ughughugh, perhaps in realisation of inference that could be drawn. User:Ughughugh in his/hers original upload of the latest Mewse article adds in the edit summary: "See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leddra_Chapman" – Why? Checking through to the revision history of the Leddra Chapman article we see that a User:Leddrachapman, and IP 84.13.107.25, were specially created one edit set-ups to contest a PROD deletion with an edit summary that I believe is in similar style to the out-of-the-woodwork IP comments seen through joe decker’s Mewse link. I request a sockpuppet investigation of potential links between User:Mdanie2, User:Ughughugh, User:Leddrachapman, IP 84.13.107.25, and the IP addresses on the previous deletion discussion. Acabashi (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2011 (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.