Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maro (singer)

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. Arguments presenting sources that meet GNG have not been refuted. Online sources can certainly be independent, in-depth, and reliable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maro (singer)[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)

do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I accepted this at AfC because I felt it met the bare minimum for WP:GNG, having around three independent sources that provided non-trivial mentions. These would be from The Face (magazine) (a full interview), Flaunt (another shorter interview) and from Affinity Magazine (analysis of his single + interview). I don't see any reason to doubt the reliability or independence of these sources, except maybe the Flaunt one, where his single debuted. There are nonetheless two other less substantial sources, one from Paper (magazine), that support his notability. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [Interview] again [Interview], [YouTube], [Online source], [Online source]. With these sources, the subject is clearly not notable for Wikipedia. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm confused by the comment above listing sources then saying clearly not notable... Is there any further explanation? Is there a suggestion that an online source is unacceptable? Anyway, those are the same sources that Yeeno discussed (minus the YouTube link) where a brief explanation on each was given. The first source from The Face may be an interview, but it is still independent as the author provides a good introduction to the subject before even getting to the interview. That plus Affinity is enough to satisfy multiple sources to meet GNG. -2pou (talk) 17:09, 27 July 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.