Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ms Scandalous

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Scandalous

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No working references, fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Tagged since 2009 for improvement. Smithers89 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. She was a reasonably well-known name within the UK Punjabi/bhangra scene at the time, but never broke out of that scene and crossed over to the mainstream, and I can't find any evidence of further recordings after her second album in 2008. There are some passing mentions in books such as here and here, but nothing that you could really use to write even a basic biographical stub with sources. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: "reasonably well-known name within the UK Punjabi/bhangra scene at the time" and making the charts seems adequate to meet GNG to me. Being tagged forever is not a reason to delete if GNG is met... Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw: that was just my opinion as an editor. And which charts did she make? Richard3120 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article states "entered the MTV Base top ten at no.4. " -- that might be a video countdown, not a chart, but same basic concept. Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that count as an acceptable chart under Wikipedia guidelines? As far as I know, it's a genre-specific chart voted for by viewers of the MTV Base programme. Richard3120 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source [1]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have examined but found absolutely nothing actually substantiating any independent notability or substance; the listed sources themselves are trivial. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some additional references and cleaned up the article a little. WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2016 (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.