Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Maranda


 * 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 soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Nicolas Maranda

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Poorly sourced (also same in French and Finnish article versions). I don't see anything that pushes him over the mark for WP:MUSICBIO. The first gnews hit maybe but other than that indepth coverage is extremely limited. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment He was active on the series 19-2, but seems to have lost trust after a video was posted of his, ahem, amorous activities with his spouse . I'd have to dig more, he seems to be semi-regularly discussed in Quebec media. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He's given a brief interview here and talks about being an immigrant in Quebec. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He probably passes NMUSIC for: 2011 Nicolas Maranda, 19–2 Composer, arranger, musician (Double Gémeau Award-winning soundtrack) Gemeau is the French version of the Gemini award, the Canadian Grammy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. While he has potentially valid notability claims with Gémeaux awards (and a Canadian Screen Award nomination that the article as written completely misses), in this form it's a mess with far, far too much completely unsourced trivia and far, far too much advertorialism shot through it. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can write something better than this and support it with far more than just one footnote, but as written this ain't cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2023 (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.