Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabsora

Nabsora

Nabsora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication that the subject satisfies any of the 12 notability criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO – not signed to any major record label; no major awards; has seemingly released only a debut album; lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliably-published, third-party sources; total of 86 hits for their name on Google. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 14:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• It should probably also be noted that the creator of this article is likely to have a COI with regard to the subject: see this and this. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The artist releases their own material similar to that of artists such as tech nine. The references are a clear guide that everything in the article is true and nothing has been written which has not got reliable. Wiki clearly states you should not scare aware those new to this and delete their articles straight away without communicating and offering assistance first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It meets this criteria and you only have to meet one it says here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

NABSORA - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means, add these multiple, reliable, independent sources to the article. A one-off interview with a borough council is not sufficient. Please note that anything written by the subject or anyone close to him (such as the subject's official website) cannot be considered "independent", and that YouTube, SoundCloud and other social media are not reliable. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 16:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I have an article appeared in their magazine too Spring 2015 Issue too, which all residents receive via email and post code download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore his music was independently reviewed on the Fame Music by Big Artists. Which I added to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the magazine, the online interview/article was published in March; does the Spring 2015 print article significantly expand on it? As for the Fame Music website, one-line user-generated comments do not provide significant, reliable coverage as required by WP:GNG. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 17:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given by nominator.Pincrete (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep the article has valid independent press related to the artist. Music according to google has been released under an independent label too.BnS (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means, add the independent press to the article. Do you believe that the independent label that you refer to could be considered "one of the more important indie labels" mentioned by criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO? SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Searches turned up nothing notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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.