Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimoza Duot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mimoza Duot[edit]

Mimoza Duot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails both general and specific notability guidelines. Duot is a third-place finisher on a TV competition; she released two singles, but neither of them charted. The only source in the article is a single newspaper story. Two years is plenty of time for the article to have improved. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's a 2012 article here from Winnepeg Free Press that has lots of coverage, but it's pretty quotation-heavy and light on more substantive, independent coverage. I'm also fairly certain both this publication and the Pilipino-Express are somewhat local in its coverage as well. The coverage, in short, does not quite meet the WP:GNG threshold. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the WP:NMUSIC criteria, nor the quality and volume of reliable sourcing available about her are actually there yet. I'm sure if she keeps it up she'll qualify for an article soon enough, but that day hasn't quite arrived yet. Delete (without prejudice against future recreation if and when her notability and sourceability can be beefed up.) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2014 (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.