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. Consensus seems to precise (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Ann Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject of article is a composer, author & musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. A before search further reveals no indication nor evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources" is a bold statement since the article's sources include the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, Women in World History and Women in music : an encyclopedic biobibliography. Three reputable reference works; there's your WP:THREE. I don't have access to An encyclopedic biobibliography so it's possible that it might not have SIGCOV, but you can see that she has a full entry in the other two books on the Internet Archive (p. 508), (p. 748). Having a full entry in at least one major reference work is usually an indicator that a person is encyclopedically notable (since they are included in an encyclopedia and all) and that sufficient secondary sourcing exists to pass WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy, I think you may be hinting at #6 of WP:COMPOSER but I don’t think anything you have said meets the criterion listed therein. Furthermore she definitely doesn’t scale our general notability criteria & like you rightfully said above (which nullifies #6 of Composer) I also cannot see her discussed with significant hence she truly definitely doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. She is also supposed to be a singer but also I’m unable to see any criterion from WP:SINGER being met. Lastly a before search only links me to sites like LINKEDIN & other non imperative sources. If you can provide in this AFD, any source(s) that discusses subject of our discussion with in-depth significant coverage i’d analyze the sources & if they are plausible I’d close the AFD as there wil be no reason to further stretch the AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links to two reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject in the comment that you are replying to. Spicy (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those and they aren’t significant coverage. That’s why I told you to provide additional links to more reliable sources which can be easily verified. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in an encyclopedia is most certainly significant coverage. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand what an encyclopedia is for. Not interested in debating this any further. Spicy (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy, I see you have a point & I’d have to agree to consensus, like I said earlier if a valid reason was brought forward I was going to withdraw the AFD the second !voter seems to be echoing your point so I’d withdraw this one.

• Keep. She's the subject of articles in other encyclopedias, which is de facto evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2020 (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.