Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florat

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 keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florat[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 has multiple issues, lacks of references and fails the inclusion criteria for WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of the article has been covered non-trivially by multiple sources, including Bota Sot (https://www.botasot.info/mediale-vip-showbiz/1513686/florat-qerimi-talenti-i-repit-shqitaro-zviceran/, https://www.botasot.info/mediale-vip-showbiz/1495010/neser-me-28-janar-vjen-super-projekti-nga-labeli-mrm/), Epoka e Re (https://www.epokaere.com/florat-cerimi-vjen-me-tri-projekte-muzikore-unike/), Intervista (https://intervista.al/web/2021/01/djemte-e-mrm-orges-ft-florat-elbu-sjellin-sh-w-a/, https://intervista.al/web/2021/02/florat-qerimi-talenti-i-repit-shqiptaro-zvicerin/), and Gazeta Direkt (http://www.gazetadirekt.com/estrada/florat-qerimi-talenti-i-repit-shqiptaro-zviceran/) among others, meeting the first criterion of WP:MUSICBIO and general criteria in WP:GNG. I'm not sure how this constitutes "multiple issues" or "lack of references", as the deletion nominator put it. --Λeternus ^(talk) 12:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - some of the sources above look a bit like the sort of tabloid junk you get in Daily Mail or similar. That being said, the coverage across various different national newspapers is just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG, imo Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 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.