Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalyn (singer)

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 no consensus‎. Of note is that WP:SINGER states that subjects may be notable per the criteria there, but this subject-specific notability guideline (WP:SNG) does not provide presumed notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalyn (singer)

[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)

Article about a singer, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims are that she had a single peak #59 on the charts, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this, and that she was nominated for a minor industry award that doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #8 at all.
For sourcing, we've got things like a link that now lands at this week's Billboard chart (#1 song by Doja Cat, so clearly not a chart from 2009) instead of whatever anybody thought they were linking to at the time, short unsubstantive human interest blurbs of the "local singer does stuff" variety in community hyperlocals in suburban Vancouver, and primary sourcing to Apple Music and IMDb that isn't support for notability at all -- while there is a second valid source for the chart position and an acceptable source for the non-notable award nomination, they're the only things here that are sourced properly. As I already noted, neither of those things are "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG -- but even on a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find anything else besides the Richmond/Surrey/Burnaby pennysavers again. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. HueMan1 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to G.R.L.: Seems to be more remembered as part of the GRL group, although coverage is about a member that died recently. She was nominated for the Canadian Music Award, but the CBC article already used for sourcing is all there is that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references are adequate for a stand-alone article. After all, she charted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canadian Hot 100 is the standard national chart for that country, the subject's song at #59 is verifiable via inline citation in the article, as such WP:NSINGER#C2 is met, notability is presumed. There is sufficient additional verifiable information that we are not at risk of being unable to construct an article of start class or better. —siro χ o 05:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is fine if the article is sourced properly. #59 is not a high enough chart position that just technically verifying it via the chart itself would constitute an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to have any valid GNG-worthy sourcing about her at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSINGER per Siroxo's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion but consensus right now is leaning towards Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 11 October 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.