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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marli Buck[edit]

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

Delete. This article is written very informally, contains zero sources, has some serious NPOV issues, and has no evidence of notability (a google search for 'Marli Buck' simply returns the Wikipedia page). --Ashershow1_talk 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as written admits she just missed being notable, and there are a lack of ghits to third party sources to counter this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has all the markings of a spam/vanity article. Not only the article itself claims that the artist is irrelevant but also once we check the article history we see that a considerable number of edits comes from User:Marliharwood -- Mecanismo | Talk

It also looks as though User:Marliharwood vandalized the article since it was nominated for deletion. Maybe someone with rollback rights could correct it? --Ashershow1_talk 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I long ago became disaffected with the inclusionist approach of Wikipedia when it came to musicians but can't see why this is an exception to the many minor musicians with articles. It is badly written but that is not a reason for deletion. It doesn't help that the artist in question has written much of it or that the artist's real name and performer name appear to be different. The notability is based on the artist having the current BBC Radio 2 single of the week http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/music/playlist/next-week/ , here's an article about it http://www.aaamusic.co.uk/2011/01/24/unsigned-artist-marli-harwood-made-radio-2-single-of-the-week-after-giving-up-music/ (I might have forgotten how to use wiki mark-up correctly) MLA (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Marli Harwood the same person as Marli Buck? In any case, even if we can somehow establish notability, the article has so many problems (i.e. NPOV, no sources, informally written), that it would have to be completely overhauled in order to be of any encyclopedic benefit. Not sure it's worth keeping. --Ashershow1_talk 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the same person. I think the article might be better as Marli Harwood rather than Marli Buck. I had a quick read of the music notability guidelines and couldn't quite work out what "placed" means for a national talent show competition - the BBC's Fame Academy qualifies as such and Marli was on screen for 5 weeks when she was still known as Buck (which is probably her maiden name as she married a Harwood) MLA (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should at least be renamed 'Marli Harwood,' but I disagree that it should be kept as an article. Being part of a talent competition does not make you notable. By those standards, every prankster on Britain's Got Talent would be on Wikipedia.--Ashershow1_talk 03:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that the standards around here are too lax for inclusion when it comes to entertainers but a run on a talent show and a nationally-syndicated record of the week (both the show and the radio station are the BBC) are points made under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. When the record is released in a couple weeks, there's a reasonable chance this artist also adds a chart placement. Also I noticed that someone else seems to have started work on improving the quality of the article. MLA (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 January 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.