Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mi Sandi

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 no consensus. My personal preference would be towards delete. Consensus is that the article mostly promotional, and the grammar somewhat indecipherable quality. However, having bad sources does not negate the GNG criteria of the good sources, and insufficient analysis of the sources 1-4 & 6 has taken place. It does not appear the topic meets NSINGER #5. Further discussion is merited, but a third relisting for a fourth go-round of discussion is not viable. I would recommend interested parties take some time to analyze the non-social-media references contained in the article, and perhaps try to find significantly better references, remove the breathless worship, and then bring the article here again if it is still found deficient. But not tomorrow. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Sandi[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)

Not too sure about this, some mentions in connection with joint projects. Even the stuff we have seems to be no more then a paragraph. VocalIndia (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't read some of the sources, but a large fraction are very obviously social media cruft. Likely fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the poorly written material was added by the sock puppet User:Nyeinchankoko1025 days after the article was created. (It looked like this before the mentioned additions.) That does probably not disprove your argument, but it is good to note. Geolodus (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NSINGER #5 as "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", she released her albums on a major record lebel Legacy Music. Thanks "KoKoChitChit" (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Ko Chit Chit is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By what standards do you consider "Legacy Music" to be a "major recording label", Ko Ko Chit Chit? Legacy describes itself as a "digital content aggregator" (see here). -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ko Ko Chit Chit and evidence towards GNG in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fourteen references to Facebook WP:FACEBOOK and one to Amazon.com is definitely WP:REFBOMBING - I couldn't check the other WP:NONENG references, but if the multiple Facebook refs are any indication, they are all trivial social media hype - if for any bizarre reason this article is kept, the English is so bad ("In 19 Jun 2018 Swar eternal city was justified by the Nursing Home Birthday") that it is in need of WP:TNT - my !vote is delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have lots of promotional cruft, yes. But the non-English references, currently 1-4 & 6, are the better references in the article and show some evidence of meeting GNG. It seems unwise to exclude them from one's assessment. Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE, WP:MUSICIAN, and even WP:ANYBIO. The quality of the attempts at sourcing are telling, as is the background of the main culprit. This is strictly promotional cruft. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2019 (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.