Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anca Pop

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Pop

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

No particular indication of notability. WP:MUSICBIO points 2-12 don't appear to apply. As to point 1, the sourcing is mediocre at best. We have:

Some cruft ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) - not really worth addressing in detail
A biography formerly hosted on a television station website, with obvious promotional intent
Another biography from the firm that released her album
A blurb from "Playboy PR"; she had recently appeared on their cover
A news brief informing readers that the subject had been invited to Cannes (not really a marker of notability)
A tabloid press release
And, best of all, the tabloid announcement that the subject is "free of sexual limitations"

So, while some biographical ephemera does exist, it seems quite apparent that this individual isn't notable as a musician. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as shown in the nomination none of the sources provide significant coverage that is clearly in 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the article will be deleted, please move everything in a draft so I can develop the article better and I will get it back when she will be notable. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments and Wikipedia:Too soon. This article can be recreated in the future if the subject gets more significant coverage. If deleted, I would support the decision to move this back into the creator's user space so he or she can continue to work on it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is barely sufficient to squeak through. Inlinetext (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A case of WP:TOOSOON. No issues with it being userfied, in fact, that would be best, since there is an editor willing to work on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have deleted articles with much better sourcing. In this case, her only real connection to notability is via Goran_Bregović. I have to agree with the others; it's just too soon to declare her even barely notable. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 16 March 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.