Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Mango (2nd nomination)

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. Per consensus met for GNG after the additon of new sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Mango[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and there is no obvious WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. No consensus in 2005 AfD when standards for inclusion were significantly lower. Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE unless someone is willing to do the work to establish notability - there’s nothing so far. Llajwa (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a look into this and think it will meet the 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself' notability criterion (at least). So I'll keep working on the article to bring it up to standard. Alarichall (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Review in the Glasgow Herald is fine, but that's all I can see that would count toward notability. I can't find anything beyond streaming sites or a bio at the Conservatoire of Scotland where this person works. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I've added references to coverage in national UK papers including The Sunday Times, Metro, and The Scotsman. I haven't done a comprehensive trawl of reporting, but I think that the article now shows that Jo Mango meets the notability criterion 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself'. Alarichall (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage references added to the article such as the Sunday Times, The Scotsman, and The Herald (Scotland). Am exercising WP:AGF as urls are not provided for two of the three aforementioned sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 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.