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 keep per NAC/SNOW. Good job. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mills (opera singer)[edit]

Mary Mills (opera singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Needs incredibly fundamental re-write. Completely unreferenced, original research, POV, written in first person, etc. Tan | 39 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite. I think notability is established through references from reliable sources. The original article did include references, but they were given only as URLs. I moved some of the references into ((Cite news)) format to make them easier to read. But the problems cited by the nominator aren't in themselves reason to delete. Things like the names of her spouse or her children can be omitted if they can't be verified, but the original article can still serve as the basis for a good article on a notable American opera singer, once various style issues are resolved. --Eastmain (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, references in article establish notability (and hundreds more are available). A notable opera singer with an international career at the highest level, even if she isn't a household name. It's very depressing to see articles like this db-tagged within minutes of creation, when ((wikify)) should be where it goes -- so thanks for bringing it to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did some cleanup, eliminating most of the personal observations and asides. Six paragraphs on her early life and nothing on her career, to be completely fair, makes it difficult to see notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Notability should be addressed in the body of the text somewhere and the career section definitely needs expanding. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Oh, for pity's sake. CSD and AfD both within four minutes of the article's creation? That's just obnoxious. I agree that the article needs a huge rewrite, but (a) it isn't as if nom gave the creator a chance to do so, and (b) AfD is not the proper venue for that. I'm not terribly sold on the subject's notability, but this is crazy.  RGTraynor  14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Please look at the article as it was originally created - I actually did look at it for a few minutes, trying to see if I could wrestle anything out of it to at least create a stub. I removed the misplaced CSD tag, and created this AfD to gain some discussion and perspective on it. I don't appreciate you calling my actions "obnoxious", and this AfD is exactly the chance to rewrite, source, etc. Like Dhartung said above, this certainly wasn't a speedy candidate, and I think this discussion has (and will) cause the article to meet Wikipedia standards a lot faster (and better) than if I had just slapped a cleanup tag on it. Tan | 39 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  However, using AfD to force cleanup, especially when the article is still being created, is obnoxious behavior. There's enough articles with valid reasons to delete to wade through. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I quite agree with Quasirandom. This is not some article that's been dangling for a year or two. This is an article that was created moments before you AfDed it. To quote from the guide to deletion, "Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia." The nomination section in particular urges numerous steps that should be taken before filing an AfD, including tagging, adding cleanup templates, investigating the notability of a subject, and so on. No inclusionist would ever count me in his camp, but deletionism is a heck of a lot easier to defend when hack-and-slash isn't our first and only impulse.  RGTraynor  15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry you folks feel this way. I am not a mindless deletionist. I made a comment on Quasi's talk page that you might find interesting. Tan | 39 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for not assuming good faith. However, you do admit on my talk page that you found enough information to demonstrate notability. Even if the initial article needed a complete ground-up rewrite, per the instructions for deleting an article, that makes the AfD inappropriate. In the context of large numbers of savable articles being AfDed/PRODded/CSDed within moments of creation, it was an annoying action. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable enough.--Berig (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Citations, as now present, demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Good save, Dhartung. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly notable and I have to state my concern about the possibility of this article being nominated for AFD in order to force cleanup. We have tags that we use to indicate articles that require cleanup, more sources and a better claim for notability, which should be used (except for more cut-and-dried cases) before the AFD procedure is followed. 23skidoo (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (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.