Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Ybarra

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. So Why 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ybarra[edit]

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

Promotional article of less known singer, no evidence of notability. Created by an SPA with a username same as the subject of the article. Isibtain (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page written by the article's subject. The references are from user contributed sites, trivial mentions, and self-press releases. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of it needs to be cut, but as far as I can tell this, this, and this are reliable sources and are not user-contributed. I think that just about pushes this over the limit for GNG. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I disagree with the argument above that interprets the examples provided as significant coverage. This, and this are just web pages that cover/chronicle the local music scene for a very narrow audience. This reference perhaps carries a bit more weight, but the coverage is based on an interview with the subject and promotes an appearance, not really an objective, third party example of notability. Basically, these three example combined add up to simply citing press for the sake of citing press. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shallow coverage in RSs, promotional. Rentier (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:15, 3 July 2017 (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.