Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayes Warner

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Hayes Warner}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Hayes Warner}})

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their music exists, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about them in reliable sources -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that she "had breakout success", with absolutely no concrete measures of success (chart positions, awards, etc.) quantified at all to show that she would meet any of the criteria in NMUSIC, and two of the three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions about herself in the first person, and a puff piece in an unreliable music PR blog that isn't support for notability at all.
There's just one acceptable piece of GNG-worthy coverage in a fully reliable source cited here at all -- but even it doesn't really verify any specific achievements that would pass NMUSIC, and just amounts to "emerging musician releases single", so it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for reliable sourcing.
Just existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to achieve something that would pass NMUSIC, or from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - This musician does not simply exist. Her music is played on radio stations around the country (which is how I know of her). She has also appeared on multiple programs that cover artists. This is just the infancy of notability this artist is rapidly gaining. The existing sources, though sparse, are valid and reliable. And the number of them can only go in one direction from this point.Thatkindagurl (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• :We need evidence of airplay. If she has airplay on major radios she may meet WP:MUSICBIO. Darkm777 (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Here is evidence of airplay. This station plays her frequently. Most recent play at 7:18 PM EST on 2/10. [https://xmplaylist.com/station/siriusxmhits1?last=1739235934458&start=initial]. This meets criteria #11 of WP:SINGER. Thatkindagurl (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Note: I just voted keep as I have found some more articles on her. Darkm777 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Nom covered it pretty well, there's just not enough WP:SIGCOV for it. Wouldn't be opposed to a draftify in case she becomes more notable in the future though. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep after Bearian WP:HEY. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: I have improved the article and added new citations that I found. She has several articles such as in Us Magazine, Grammy.com and Earmilk. She qualifies.Darkm777 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep' per WP:HEY, based upon the rescue by {{U|Darkm777}}. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It’s close but appears to pass muster. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/marvel-rivals-players-hit-back-at-luna-snows-21-2099-bundle/ar-AA1z8WDg MSN], [https://www.the360mag.com/popstar-hayes-warner-releases-her-new-single-oh/ The 360 Mag], [https://headlineplanet.com/home/2024/04/14/dua-lipas-illusion-hayes-warner-billy-b-kevin-rudolfs-just-a-girl-officially-make-top-40-at-pop-radio/ Headline Planet], [https://thehoneypop.com/2024/01/12/exclusive-interview-hayes-warner-talks-worst-time-of-year-breadcrumbs-more/ HoneyPop], [https://www.the360mag.com/billy-b-hayes-warner/ The 360 Mag] etc. Drushrush (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.