Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamuchtar

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. Star Mississippi 02:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamuchtar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two pieces about him in Haaretz [1][2] but that's not enough (and certainly doesn't reflect the content of the article) Ascelyn (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in English need improvement, but this artist is definitely notable in Israel, and the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia has more sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets examine your assertion for this WP:BLP. This has a single ref which is a PR interview. Lets look at the other references. Looking at the Hebrew Wikipedia , the article doesn't have a single reference. What it does have is lots of external links. They are not WP:SECONDARY sources.

First one is IMDB. Is is non-rs.
Second is Discogs. Non-rs
Third is the Mooma social media site. Non-rs
Fourth is bandcamp which is non-rs.
Fifth is youtube social media link. Non-rs
Sixth and sevenths are the same two references identified above.
Eighth is another interview.

So not one secondary source amongst the lot of it. Typical of somebody that barely known. On youtube they subject only has 84 fans indication no social media presence.. The are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As sourcing currently stands there's insufficient to pass any of the notability guidelines. Agree with Scope creep's evaluation of the Hebrew Wikipedia sources. Open to changing my opinion should better souces be unearthed but a quick search hasn't yielded anything of substance. Rupples (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2023 (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.