The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was blank. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmcclusky/Rachel McClusky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Normally I'd just blank this article but I'm not certain if this is a plausible draft or just a hoax. The website is dead and there's no indication of the song "Secret Crush" at Prom_(film)#Soundtrack. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as long as we're here. She exists, her EP is on iTunes, there is a lot of social media about her, but no indication that she is anywhere near WP:MUSICBIO. If she does make it, an article would be better written by someone without obvious COI. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sells music. http://www.amazon.com/Beleave-Me-Rachel-McClusky/dp/B00PT70SOW

Does promotional interviews http://highlightmagazine.net/2012/01/19/550/

Has been covered http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-26/entertainment/ct-live-0427-danielle-prom-mcclusky-20110426_1_original-song-movie-prom

I don't see what is unusual about this draft. Definitely a typical draft, just not on its way to meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Promotion is always a concern. I would just blank at most. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it may have been a hoax. I'm fine with a blank as well but I understand deletion as promotional with an obvious COI flag there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as COI spam. If she makes it some fan will write it up. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that we have any policy saying that the identity of the creator affects the question of whether a subject is notable, so your rationale for deletion appears to be irrelevant. I'm leaning towards Keep and courtesy-blank myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank, don't delete. So far it doesn't look like any reason for deletion applies. It just looks like a draft that seems unlikely to go anywhere. If it does turn out to be a hoax, of course, then it should be deleted, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Fagles (talk) 13:32, 6 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.