Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trisha Alicia

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Alicia[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has a potentially valid notability claim per WP:NMUSIC but is completely failing to reliably source it. The referencing here is based entirely on primary sources, such as her own self-published social networking content and an unreliable public relations platform, with no evidence of media coverage about her shown at all. And the base notability claim, that she had a song peak #73 in a Billboard specialty genre chart, would be enough if the article were sourced properly but is not compelling enough to hand her an automatic presumption of notability on bad sources. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but the writing tone and sourcing here are not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with user Bearcat, doesn't pass muster due to lack of independent reliable sourcing, fails WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 23 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.