Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stina battle

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stina battle[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)

"Sources" are mostly PR pieces masquerading as articles (e.g. the Digital Journal piece). From reading the article and the sources, one would think that Stina Battle is a popular upcoming artist. Bizarrely, there are no Google News results for her[1], and just 22(!) Google hits[2], which is absolutely nothing for a US contemporary artist. Fram (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Fram (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and a lack of independent and reliable support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time - what appears to be an original press release (July 2022) seems helpful for identifying PR masquerading as independent sources, and a source such as Hype Magazine appears to be promotional hype, not secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Santa Clarita newspaper is the only coverage I find about her in a RS. She's listed as "up and coming", since 2019, so I think it's safe to say that she hasn't attained critical attention in media since then, as we find no RS. The lack of capitalization on the last name in the article title leads me to ask if this was created, SALT'ed then recreated in some attempt to avoid detection here. Regardless, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and the image used appears to be a copyvio from Hollywood Digest [3], which I don't think is a RS either. Image uploaded by a red-linked user, no OTRS ticket (which is typical in these AfD discussions when the "artist" isn't notable). Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's not, it's done through the Mob Press [4], a PR firm. So no dice for notability. And her mother promoting her on LinkedIn [5], so not a neutral source either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no independent coverage is given and all through press releases. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fixed the article to make it into the normal style, and then did searches for sources, but found none indicating notability CT55555(talk) 14:54, 14 January 2023 (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.