Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shataramarie

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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shataramarie

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

The article don't have any reliable sources. Interview is not reliable sources for living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbiewiki123 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 'The problem with this is that it may meet WP:NMUSIC. Or may not. Checking whether the albums are on the rankings or such is time consuming, and I don't know how to do it quickly, which is why I don't usually even comment on MUSIC and SPORT related deletion requests. Ít would be much easier if the nom has explained that they had considered NMUSIC criteria and confirm that the subject is failing them. As the nom is written, it is just complaining about WP:RS, and that does not mean that the subject is not notable. Unreliable sources do not merit deletion. Ping me if there are new arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. There are no rankings at all – the supposed "number 2 R&B hit" was on a non-notable, non-national online radio station, and their chart is based on a combination of radio play and listener requests, so it would certainly be WP:BADCHARTS. Article is pure WP:PROMO. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's in fact nothing at all for actual notability and no signs this career has any signs enough for current improvements hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find much past what's on the page aside from self-promotion, and certainly nothing that appears to be in-depth reliable coverage. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a generic "I fixed it" post on the talk page of this discussion, from what I am assuming is the creator of the page. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article does have resources added. There is NO reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.254.77.233 (talk • contribs)
Administrator note I've reverted a page move to project space by the page author, who also blanked the page and replaced it with "Page deleted". I would delete this as WP:G7 if not for the significant edits by other good-faith contributors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:30, 16 November 2016 (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.