Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Singleton

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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Singleton

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

Does not meet any guidelines for notability in WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. There are several citations mentioning her involvement in her husband's work, but she was not personally the subject of the notable published works. Her only arguably notable action is being a producer for three albums, but the albums themselves are not notable and I don't believe being a producer for someone else's work is a notable action. 217IP (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She appears to pass WP:GNG as she has been the subject of significant coverage in mainstream media sources. Published profiles focused on her include People magazine, Detroit Free Press and Record Collector. See also her autobiography published in 1990. Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source talks almost entirely about her relationships with her husband and really doesn't focus on her at all. It was basically an interview about her husband. Your second source talks almost entirely about a book that she was releasing and was essentially a press release (not independent). The third article is only a few paragraphs and not in any way significant coverage. Her autobiography is neither independent nor secondary nor reliable and does not count towards notability. The coverage she has received is not, in my opinion, at all significant. Even if she has been mentioned in a few articles, being interviewed about your deceased husband is not notable. Please see WP:INHERIT, which specifically states: Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. I do not believe this article passes that test. 217IP (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify in what way it satisfies? 217IP (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per other comments - widely profiled, and a notable player in establishing an internationally important cultural phenomenon. Allmusic article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the others, there is more than enough significant, reliable coverage here to comfortable pass GNG. Enough of it is detailed coverage, too, not just passing mentions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE on several levels. As previously stated, she played a significant role in the early development of Motown. This includes the establishment of the Rayber Voices and her unofficial capacity as a historian of the company. Also per WP:N#TEMP, once a subject receives significant coverage, it does not have to be ongoing. Igbo (talk) 23:06, 1 July 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.