Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Sexy J

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sexy J[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)

Non notable DJ who satisfies no criterion from WP:MUSICBIO neither does she possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her hence falls to satisfy GNG either. All sources used in the article are extended long announcements and interviews which counts for nothing. I should also add that a few reliable sources do discuss her but this RS are announcements hence are of no value to GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 16:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DJs are rarely notable because like this one, they are so run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone above. Btw, @Celestina007:, if those RS are announcements, then they are not RS. Just to be clear. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostDestroyer100, ummm what I think you mean to say is they aren’t to be considered RS in this very context. Reliable sources every now & again publishes what can be referred to as a mere announcement but it doesn’t invalidate the fact that they are a reliable press. The problem is with the piece and not the source per se. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (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.