Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Mar

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Mar[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)

There are multiple press mentions but all of them at unreliable media and tabloids, 0 book mentions. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I saw that you wanted to nominate it for the deletion as well. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As written, does not satisfy either musical notability or general notability:
- - The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, which makes it difficult to see if there are any good-quality sources.
  - However, it is not necessary to check the references, because the article as written is what is seen by the reader and should speak for itself.
  - The article, as written, does not address the musical notability criteria and does not describe the significant coverage required for general notability.
  - See edit summary comment, "Just to let you know, I took this information from an already made wiki about her because i can't be asked to write all the information so some of the stuff may be wrong so feel free to change the stuff to the correct information". This means that there was little or no effort to check verifiability.
  - There is also a draft. The creation of both a draft and an article is sometimes done to game the system to prevent the article from being moved to draft space. The draft can be kept.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total WP:GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely too soon, as stated. She'll likely be notable in a few years, if we wanted to keep this in the draft space. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Robert McClenon's spot-on assessment. Currently fails WP:GNG, although might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does having a top 20 in UK Indi chart count towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO ? if so, then I would vote keep. Lesliechin1 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom as WP:TOOSOON. May be notable in the future. Many of the cited sources are WP:PRIMARY bop34 • talk • contribs 12:16, 19 April 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.