Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tara


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Miss Tara

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has four sources. One is the PR biography at a beauty pageant, so is not independent and does not establish notability. It is the only one that is primarily about the subject of the article. The second is a YouTube video uploaded by the subject, used as a source for the date of her birthday. This is not independent and does not establish notability. The other two are record reviews, which do not establish notability of the subject per WP:NOTINHERITED. The article was written in return for payment. In the end, this is someone who has made one album that appeared one above the bottom of a second-tier chart. I do not think this establishes notability, and the fact that the subject had ot pay for the article rather supports that. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I was notified of this by so I will not !vote. I passed this through AFC because WP:MUSICBIO#2 says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and Billboard is specifically identified as an acceptable chart. I accept that I may have been wrong and that some Billboard charts are not acceptable. I am not familiar with the ins and outs of music charts, but I have seen no indication of this in any of the notability guidelines.  My personal opinion is that the notability criteria is too low but artists who chart tend to pass AfD much more often than not and, as I understand it, that is the criteria used for allowing articles through AFC. Since passing a SNG allows but does not require an article the balance of sources and the acceptability of an article on this subject is something to be assessed here at AfD.  Jbh  Talk  04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Thanks to both and  for careful evaluation here. As far as I can see, this hinges on whether or not the Billboard Dance/Electronic Albums chart is the "national chart" for the purposes of WP:MUSICBIO. I really wouldn't know, but it looks as if it is not – the national charts appear to be the Billboard Hot 100 for singles and the Billboard 200 for albums. Is that right? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Record charts (the page linked in the notability criteria) does not limit the eligible charts to the main Billboard charts but in that case, to charts published by Billboard Magazine "A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics: [1] It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Mexico, are legitimate sources of charts. [2] It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources." Personally I think it should be limited to the 100/200 charts but, much like some of the NSPORTS criteria, I think a ridiculously low bar was set 'back in the day' and we are now stuck with criteria which allow promo/perma-stubs. I certainly do not object to this article's deletion based on the paucity of sources and, on principle, that it is essentially a paid vehicle for using Wikipedia to increase this person's real world notability. That would have to hinge on a specific consensus here based on the guideline that passing the notability criteria allows but does not require an article on Wikipedia.  Jbh  Talk  15:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MUSICBIO only indicates that a subject may be notable; meeting any criteria listed there does not imply the subject is notable, unlike satisfying GNG. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the subject meets MUSICBIO#2, MUSICBIO only indicates that a subject may be notable. GNG has not been satisfied. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments and clarification presented above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (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.