Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett la Queen

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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett la Queen

[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)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some info abt her popularity, plus, as it was already written, she got Golden Gramophone Award (Russian music award). HalfOfDwarf (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article has multiple Russian language sources. Without a compelling source analysis from the nominator and a more detailed assertion as to why the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO (such as why an award win doesn't count), I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the sources then.

Ref 1 and 2. Can't be used to establish notability. They are red in the NPP script as unreliable.

Ref 3. Is undefined but a web search finds О’скар which is a nano profile and is non-RS. An image and instagram links. It is junk.

Ref 4. Translation of the artile title: An interview in the entertainment section.

Ref 5. Non-RS is a listing of radio programs.

Ref 6. He got beat up, report.

Ref 7. Annoucement.

Ref 8 is a dead link.

Ref 9 is a Gazetta, the only real secondary source.

There some minor coverage but not sufficient for an article. 5 of the 9 references are junk, one is an interview, one is a court report of being beat up and one is a real secondary source. The article subject posits themselves as a singer. They're is no evidence been provided that the subject is a singer. The article is non-notable at this time. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources: infox.ru, riafan.ru, profile.ru, daily.afisha.ru, yuga.ru, ren.tv, tvc.ru, newkuban.ru, starhit.ru, saltmag.ru, life.ru --HalfOfDwarf (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artist was very famous in the 90's. That's why he got the Golden Gramophone award. Due to some issues with his producer he had to stop using the artistic name Oscar and migrated to the US. Right now she's less famous under a new artistic name and gender than he used to be 20 years ago. At least the sources #17 and #22 are good enough. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2021 (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.