Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Dale

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. Tone 14:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Dale

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not seem to be notable per WP:NMUSIC, no reliable sources are listed, no coverage besides routine, local coverage. Article reads semi-promotional. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not seem to be notable. The sources used in the article suggest detailed write-ups, but both are offline. She apparently holds a top-level heraldry within a "kingdom" of the Society for Creative Anachronism historical recreation group, which is partially based on merit and partially based on buying a membership, and anyway doesn't seem to be the sort of thing which confers notability. Google-fu turns up nothing, except maybe one gig announcement in a local Ottawa paper, but that really doesn't constitute significant coverage. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough under WP:NMUSIC to withstand how poor the referencing is. With footnote #1 ("Robert J. Wiersema (6 June 2004). Vancouver Sun.") being an incomplete citation (THE ARTICLE TITLE IS MANDATORY, people!) that's being cited only to support the fact that she purportedly sounds like Sarah McLachlan rather than anything relevant to whether she passes a notability criterion or not, I ran a ProQuest search to locate it — and as I suspected, it's a one-line glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't even slightly about her otherwise. Three of the other five citations are to primary sources that cannot support notability at all, one is a special interest newsletter that would probably be fine for supplementary verification of stray facts after she'd already cleared WP:GNG on stronger sources but is not widely distributed enough to bring the GNG all by itself as the strongest source on offer, and as for The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, that book's searchable version on Google Books completely fails to verify the claim that she's mentioned in it at all — and even if by some chance she is mentioned in it and Google Books is just having a technical hiccup, its ability to help her become notable would still hinge on whether she actually had a standalone entry of her own (which would help to establish her as notable) or was confined to yet another glancing namecheck of her existence in its entry on somebody else (which would not). And on that ProQuest search, I got a lot of routine entries in local concert calendars (which is not how you source a person over NMUSIC #4 for touring) and a few articles about her in smalltown weekly pennysavers on the proximate level of the Caledon Enterprise, but nothing that would constitute strong coverage for the purposes of a GNG pass. As always, the ultimate notability test for a musician is not what the article says, but how well the article references what it says — but the sources here aren't cutting it, and I can't find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2018 (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.