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.
Delete. The strongest notability claim here is a completely unsourced claim that a song went to #1 in "the correspondant radio charts", failing to clarify what "the correspondant radio charts" is or whether it's
IFPI-certified. We're looking for Billboard, not just any random chart whose existence you assert but fail to verify. Nothing else stated here passes any NMUSIC criterion at all, and the sole footnote is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable
blog, which is not a notability-supporting source. We are not a free public relations platform on which emerging musicians are entitled to have articles for the publicity — making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:GNG.
Bearcat, the claim of her reaching number one on the radio charts can be verified from
this. Nonetheless, all sources that I could find are either interviews with subject that does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, or are questionable with little evidence of editorial oversight:
1 and
2 (except I guess
this). I don't think these can be used to demonstrate notability. --
Ashleyyoursmile!04:40, 7 May 2021 (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.
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.
Delete. The strongest notability claim here is a completely unsourced claim that a song went to #1 in "the correspondant radio charts", failing to clarify what "the correspondant radio charts" is or whether it's
IFPI-certified. We're looking for Billboard, not just any random chart whose existence you assert but fail to verify. Nothing else stated here passes any NMUSIC criterion at all, and the sole footnote is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable
blog, which is not a notability-supporting source. We are not a free public relations platform on which emerging musicians are entitled to have articles for the publicity — making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:GNG.
Bearcat, the claim of her reaching number one on the radio charts can be verified from
this. Nonetheless, all sources that I could find are either interviews with subject that does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, or are questionable with little evidence of editorial oversight:
1 and
2 (except I guess
this). I don't think these can be used to demonstrate notability. --
Ashleyyoursmile!04:40, 7 May 2021 (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.