Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulann Chang

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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moulann Chang

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

Questionably notable and improvable as my searches found nothing better than this and since CBC consisted several of the listed sources, I searched there with no avail and therefore there is no obvious improvement here. It's also worth noting this has existed since July 2006 and was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulann. Pinging Nlu, Monni95, Ohconfucius, Bearcat, Brianyoumans, Bustter, Trialsanderrors and Ifnord. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 2006 was such a different time in Wikipedia's evolution — my keep argument in the original discussion was one I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole today. That said, she arguably did pass the standards that Wikipedia had for the notability of musicians at the time — the standards themselves were a lot less well-defined, and our sourcing rules were a lot looser and more flexible about what constituted a valid source, than the rules that apply in 2015. But there's no evidence that she's done anything that would satisfy the current version of WP:NMUSIC, and her sourceability isn't readily improvable. So by contemporary standards, she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting to see how much more active older AfD discussion were. The citations are pretty unreliable, and my own searches turn up nothing better. mikeman67 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 7 of WP:NMUSIC, and WP:V. Monni (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just say she passes that criterion — you have to demonstrate and reliably source how she passes that criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. She is a Youtube artist, with a bandcamp page for her website. There are no solid reliable sources to support this article's inclusion as Encyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BAND. Stubbleboy 10:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed to the above.--Yulun5566 (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2015 (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.