Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shigga Shay

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. This is one of several articles nominated with the exact same boilerplate rationale, and the consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 19:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shigga Shay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be another of the nominator's apparently indiscriminate nomination for deletion given that local significance is clearly notable per WP:BAND. Coverage of the artist is actually national, significant and in major publications - e.g. [1][2][3][4] and more, which should qualify him under WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the sources currently in the article are unreliable and need to be replaced, but a good faith before search would have easily helped identify notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2018 (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.