Talk:Obongjayar

Whether or not to raise a public deletion discussion–
Given a briefly look at the article, we may witness a lack of sources (only 3). According to the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, I may slightly tend towards bolstering up the #1 criterion as soon as possible, because the word «multiple» in the phrase «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» barely means just «three +» or so. There would be expanding upon other criteria, but my rapid Google search resulted in a tad of additional unused yet sources that may be used as references being some derivative sort. This Is Where I Came In (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article meets WP:GNG, so nitpicking over MUSICBIO is irrelevant to its notability. There's a lot more coverage online in a few different music columns and websites, , , but honestly they don't contain any additional information that isn't already in the article so I'm not sure there's value in spamming it with more citations. signed,Rosguill talk 06:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So shall we mean under the word «multiple» the number 3 (or more, of course)? Please highlight the exact bullet or the criterion you refer to. Seeing at WP:MUSICBIO, it's unclear which point (or multiple) is used (no chart tops, no international tours, no 2 albums under the umbrella of a major label, no Grammy or like that nominees, an ordinary representative of the style, etc.). This Is Where I Came In (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the general notability guideline, GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. This is easily met, as the sources compiled consist of gushing reviews of the subject's work in several major music review websites, and also multiple articles that describe the subject's life to a significant extent. signed,Rosguill talk 07:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So that number of sources (= «multiple», «coverage» [pieces]) should be 2, 3, 4 or 5 (3 sources are already put, + 2 you would have put into the article (2x noisey.vice.com counts for 1)) or even more? This Is Where I Came In (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per GNG, which you should actually read: Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple is intentionally left vague, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and because source quality is more important than source quantity, but in practice it usually means "at least three". Still, I've definitely approved several articles that only had two sources if it was clear from the degree of coverage that there was an airtight case for a guideline being met, and there's some scenarios in which even an article with only one source can be notable. signed,Rosguill talk 07:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)