Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miki ratsula


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Miki ratsula

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

non-notable musician, with lots of puff. 晚安 (トークページ) 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 晚安 (トークページ) 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Article looks like an advertisement. Lacks significant coverage in reliable multiple sources which are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article is dependent on ref-bombing to promotional sites and softball interviews from LGBTQ publications, which are fairly numerous but uniformly non-critical and introductory. The musician has one noteworthy mention in Pop Matters, but it still brief and the nature of coverage so far does not meet our significant and reliable coverage. There is lots of promotion out there, and good luck with that, but not suitable for Wikipedia. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. As usual, getting a musician into Wikipedia is not simply a matter of referencing their music to its own presence on a streaming platform like Deezer, YouTube or Spotify as evidence that it exists — it's a matter of referencing their music to third-party media coverage about them and their music as evidence that their significance has been externally validated by sources without a vested interest in the musician's career. But streaming links are more than half of the footnotes here, and even what's left is still mostly Twitter tweets and blogs and PR self-published by Miki's own management — and what we've got for genuine WP:GNG-building media coverage in reliable and notability-supporting sources is one short blurb from Pop Matters, which isn't enough all by itself. There may well be a stronger notability claim, and better notability-assisting coverage from real media to support it, in the future, but neither the substance nor the sourcing here are already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (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.