- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cardiak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This articles continues to lack WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @66.189.232.210: Could you explain yourself please, thanks. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bloomdoom2: I am sorry for the inconvenience, but I am completely undefined to disclose my information to you. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah. But I think that Bloomdoom meant that they wanted you to explain why you think the article should be deleted, not who you are. Unless you are the subject, who you are isn't relevant to why the article should (or should not) be deleted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. A reasonably well sourced article about a Grammy winner? I'm fine with keeping this. I agree it could use some work, however. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:11, 3 February 2017 (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.