Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC Swat

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. ✗plicit 14:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MC Swat[edit]

[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)

The subject lacks substantial coverage in reputable third-party sources and fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:MUSICBIO. The existing sources do not establish notability effectively. Additionally, the source from middleeasteye.net is an interview, and its reliability is questionable, infomigrants.net is not reliable, and the article from The Guardian seems to rely heavily on hearsay. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no additional reliable sources beyond those currently cited. GSS ^💬 14:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Libya. GSS ^💬 14:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources used are exactly the first 3 hits I get in Gnews. Guardian is ok, the others don't appear to be RS, or somewhat so per the source bot here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I accepted this article via AfC (which was promotional when submitted, I fixed it a bit) — Middle East Eye isn't a bad source, though, it's an interview. Guardian was okay for me.

Here's another CNN piece, which isn't too bad. TLA^tlak 02:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN piece is an interview, and interviews are not considered independent sources, thus they do not meet WP:GNG criteria. Similarly, The Guardian's article falls into the category of a 'he says, she says' type of article. GSS ^💬 04:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like Oaktree, I think The Guardian is solid but the others are based mostly on what he says or not RS. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (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.