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. J04n( talk page) 14:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Juicy M (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No indication of importance, no indication of meeting notability guidelines, orphan article, sources may be paid and it has been like this for several months with no improvement. Rizhopper ( talk) 10:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• comment FHM is an article, Billboard chart is very minor but exists - this leads me to consider her likely marginally notable per NMUSIC, and that other sources are likely to exist (but that's hypothetical, so this isn't a "keep" yet) - David Gerard ( talk) 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: I don't think the FHM source in this article is legitimate because the actual FHM goes by FHM dot com but this one goes by FHM dot ph. Also there is nothing on Billboard that mentioned her name. When I look up Juicy M, I only see Juicy J (rapper). - Rizhopper ( talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Still appears to be a minor RS (but not one that would swing it for me). The Billboard ref was [1] which may or may not be any sort of actual chart, though it's listed in the charts section. Electronica Life also looks like a minor RS. The sources don't look sponsored (I could be wrong). Looking through Google News, this is IMO not bad: [2] These are fluffy fact-of-touring coverage, but suggest she's actually somewhat noteworthy in her field (not quite NMUSIC #4 because they're not serious critical reviews, but they are international touring getting coverage): [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] There's a lot of "World's Sexiest DJ" fluff, but I'm leaning marginal keep for actually being noteworthy in her field, and I think we could have an article on the sources there are - David Gerard ( talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Your opinion though, it doesn't qualify for WP:MUSICBIO. - Rizhopper ( talk) 08:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm thinking the lower reaches of GNG. Bit of a stretch admittedly and may well be a WP:TOOSOON. But I think that's sufficient sourcing for a quite okay BLP - David Gerard ( talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have a link here that shows that she works under Armada Music label [11]. I don't know if its of any importance or if it complies with the guidelines but, Armada Music is notable record label. Other than that I couldn't find more references than the ones already here. If the article still doesn't fulfill the criteria then I think it should be deleted as per norms. (Nipun Nayar 21:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipunnayar ( talk • contribs)

Comment: WP:MUSICBIO number 5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" and she has not released even one album yet. Being signed to a notable label does not make an artist notable. - Rizhopper ( talk) 09:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable enough per WP:MUSICBIO - Rizhopper ( talk) 08:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the bottom line here in the nomination and article itself is that none of the sources listed are actual convincing substance, in fact they simply consist of her own album listings or otherwise discography websites; that's nearly always a guaranteed factor of what an article only uses if there's no actual in-depth sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete This person is not notable as a musician. However, she might be notable as a model but still the references doesn't prove it. JohnBangBang ( talk) 12:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Media coverage in numerous countries, over 3.75 million followers on FB, similar counts on Youtube channel, and the first female signed by Armada Music. Notable. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson ( talk) 04:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment - Having many fans on social media is not a criteria for notability. Being "the first female signed by Armada Music" in some way is sexist to be considered good enough for notability and I have been trying to expand this article for more than 6 months but I could not find much relevant sources. Just because you personally not want it to be deleted doesn't mean it shouldn't. There is not much media coverage. This article fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NRV - TheMagnificentist ( talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a new one in so many ways! LOL. Hmlarson ( talk) 05:52, 2 October 2016 (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.