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.
Note At the time this was put up for deletion, the article featured on the main page in the DYK section. I've pulled that hook for the time being. Schwede6600:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep—I'm the author of this article. Chambers pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. And your interpretation of the sources being peripheral doesn't match up with the... y'know, sources. Also, you can't vote in your own deletion discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2], [3]. That's my WP:THREE, although there are plenty more I could pick from.
WP:GNG states, in part, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Something like this really doesn't establish notability. KidAd • SPEAK02:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First source isn't in English, so I really wouldn't know. #2 looks like a blurb. The subject of this page is only 1/10th of that article. KidAd • SPEAK02:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:HEY, the article has been expanded with information from sources that were in the article about the multiple works and collective body of work by Chambers, and with additional sources, and I think the expansion helps emphasize, at minimum, how the sources support the WP:BASIC criteria for notability of people, including but not limited to how If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering where to find that second clause, thanks. It shouldn't be about how much any one source gives you, it's how much you can get out of all the sources without original resource. The article meets WP:BASIC either way, but the combination of sources seems like more than enough, given the quality and quantity of the article's content. (thanks to Beccaynr for the tune-up, i do appreciate it) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a note to @Charliestalnaker: As Joseph2302 and Kusma pointed out at WT:DYK, per WP:SK, an article qualifies for speedy keep if The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion. It's already been six hours since the article was taken off the main page, so it's a bit late to go back. That is something to note for next time, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not many TikTok "stars" make it to NPR or even... MIT studies. On top of that, she is now whether anyone likes it or not a professional songwriter (ASCAP is a performing rights organization that makes sure people get paid from airplay and what not). That's notable enough for me. Trillfendi (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all! I really appreciate your trying to help, but unfortunately, an AfD nomination can only be withdrawn if there are no !votes to delete. Because KidAd !voted to delete, the nomination has to run until an uninvolved editor closes it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (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.