Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Rubino

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Rubino[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)

Article about a musician, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. She did get one hit of magazine coverage in 2011 when she released her debut single, but getting one magazine feature isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself, and nothing else of significance has happened to her career since. This article is so outdated, in fact, that it still refers to the debut album that was forthcoming in 2011 in the future tense even though said album never happened -- and while she has released a few independent singles in the 2020s according to the Google, I can find absolutely no evidence that any of them accomplished anything noteworthy enough to secure passage of NMUSIC.
There just isn't anything of enduring permanent note here. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the one feature mentioned in the nom has no attributed author (Billboard Staff, see also ProQuest 849266612) so questionable RS. S0091 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 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.