Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Mar (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Mar

[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)

Lacks reliable sources under WP:MUSICBIO despite fulfilling WP:MUSICBIO#C2. There is limited coverage of the charting single itself and she is only a featured artist (edit: apologies, that is incorrect, she is fully credited). Significantly, the majority of sources are self-published or primary. Besides the chart listings, almost no other sources fulfill reliability guidelines, even after being cleaned up. Simply fails to have the necessary independent reliable sources anywhere else besides little more than a paragraph about Stay the Night. RedBaron12 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. RedBaron12 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous nom and the first nom. Having a single charted song or even album doesn't make one notable, it's just a CCS. If the song is notable (as in covered by multiple independent RS and not just a chart placement), we can have an article about that but that doesn't make Mar notable themselves. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the song has coverage and evidence that it charted in not one but two national charts so therefore passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2 which is enough to pass as notable and able to have a page on the site as there are other artist pages which have charted in one national chart, with less sources and less content on the page, yet they still stand so the evidence given and notability of the song makes it notable. It is both her and Sigala's song she isn't a feature, this has evidence. If the sources were "unreliable" that would of been made a point more in the 2nd nomination and would of been deleted then. RedactedUser300 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous AfD for this singer was closed just last week as Keep and there were no delete votes after the nomination. However, that AfD was closed by a non-admin, which accomplished little beyond unleashing yet another AfD upon us. Something has gone wrong here with our WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NAC processes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was weak at best and two of the five comments besides the nom expressed significant issues with the page that are unable to be resolved. I considered a tag to improve sources, but in my opinion, those sources just don’t exist. That was why I relisted it. RedBaron12 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per rational provided by Praxidicae and nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has an extensive discography of note as well as her internet personality career. Olajidebt (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"extensive discography of note" based on what? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete about the best I can find are famousbirthdays.com and bigstarbio.com, neither of which is useful here. No Gnews hits in any media we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found sources looks like they pass GNG and there are plenty of sources online. They have a song played by major broadcasters, they've been a judge on a national broadcast TV show, and they are very active on Twitch and YouTube. I think one of the problems people like Mar face here is that their platform is different compared to other creators. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which sources are those? Activity on Twitch and YT are irrelevant to notability. Cmon now. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the sources I used to come to my conclusion. Over three million streams of one of their songs in the UK (then million world wide), 4.3 million monthly listeners on Spotify, Currently has a song at number 12 (peaked at 11) on the UK Top 40 chart (The top 40 is broadcast on BBC Radio 1 and MTV in the UK), Top 0.03% on Twitch, has partnered with major brands a few times, interview one, interview two, commentary on the toxic culture in streaming spaces.
Does Talia Mar meet the requirements for notability? Yes, they pass the SNG for music under bullet point 11. Their song is played by BBC Radio One and MTV in the UK.
Additionally their work is streamed millions of times a month. This is not firmly a reason for notability but it should be taken as a factor.

Taken in context with all the coverage of her can it be established that she would be notable without her song being played on BBC Radio One? Yes, there are multiple interviews, mentions of her, and mainstream products created under her name.

If the rules are strictly interpreted would Mar still be notable? Probably not, I've said this before when talking about the emergence of streamers/creators like Talia Mar. I think it's important to be mindful that these people are notable but that the rules we have here to establish notability doesn't always fit well with these new mediums. The rules are principles and it's ok to be flexible in cases like this.
There is more evidence supporting keeping this article then there is evidence against it. If this edge case of people becomes a problem then we may need to revisit the policies that surround notability. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue again, which has already been discussed above, is that the vast majority of sources are merely statistics or chart numbers.

None of those other sources for interviews really lend to notability and only the mirror.co.uk is reliable. None even cover the song that fulfills notability guidelines. Yes, she technically meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2 and probably WP:MUSICBIO#C11. That does not get past the lack of meaningful sources revealed by a search.

Passing references and interviews in YouTuber blogs can’t really be classed as significant, reliable sources. Plenty of streamers and creators meet the respective rules without ignoring source criteria. RedBaron12 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr Vulpes, whose opinion on this matter I wholly agree with. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find Dr Vulpes's arguments convincing. Also, "Stay the Night" now certified Silver (200,000 equivalent units) by the BPI. --Muhandes (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO calls for reliable sources to verify the claim being made that a particular criterion is met. In this case, WP:MUSICBIO#2 is claimed, so we need a source to support that it's charted that's independent of the musician. And we've got that; Billboard very clearly confirms that she has written a song that has indeed charted. Since WP:N notes that an article must meet either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline, and this very clearly meets a subject-specific notability guideline, this article should not be deleted and any deletion based in WP:DEL-REASON#8 is erroneous. There exist enough independent sources to write a short article about this individual, as Dr vulpes has shown above, though I am in full agreement that the article needs to be cleaned up in order to reduce its reliance upon WP:SPS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am personally changing my opinion of this article to keep based on Red-tailed hawk's reasoning on WP:N. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, and may need the addition of a sourcing template.

I originally relisted the deletion nomination mainly because I thought a consensus had not sufficiently been decided last time. RedBaron12 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2022 (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.