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.
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in Google search. The sources listed in the article are blogs and YouTube video with one source being irrelevant (added for an OR sentece) FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Plenty of sources from Ukrainian news sites, I'm assuming most are RS. Unless someone can explain otherwise, it looks to be at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that is more than 50% of sources and from initial checks. It is not quantities of refs but the quality FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How could you name YouTube an unreliable source? It is there to suppport the information provided on the song and it's release date. What could be a better sourse of date of release than the platform on which it was released itself? I can't think of any. Also, in Ukrainian Wiki the Muzvar media website is considered a reliable source, as it's a popular music news website among Ukrainians. --Oleh325 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as for Muzar, different wikis will have different policies but please share the link where the Ukrainian Wiki considers Muzvar as a reliable source. See if there is something like this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sourcesFuzzyMagma (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the usage of primary sources is discouraged, but when there's no alternative I think it might be appropriate to still add it? I will try to remove as much of the video sources as possible tho, thanks. About Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources — the Ukrainian page on it is just a draft for now, and according to WP:RS this one passes. But if others think it's not a reliable one, I can add [unreliable source?] to those citations. --Oleh325 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oleh325 I think what you can do is to remove all of the information that are not supported with reliable reference or original research. Having a small article that is well-referenced is better than long that have problems.
Once you addressed the problems that is outlined here in this discussion, then come back and let people know so they can re-assess their vote. Nothing here is set in stone and people are welling to change their minds if presented with a better argument. good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a lot of articles in Ukrainian language about her on popular Ukrainian news and music websites (TSN, Lux FM, Unian, Muzvar) and more. YouTube video sources are there only to verify the dates provided for her released songs. Also, her songs appeared in Ukrainian music charts, and this info is also presented on the page. --Oleh325 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TSN reference is original research that I mentioned in the nom. You used when you said (out of context) "This is not the only case when the singer faced hate or problems due to the popularity of her own name, such situations have happened before.". Lux FM is radio station, how is this reliable? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "The TSN reference is original research"? --Oleh325 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original research implies that you have made a synthetic sentence as the source does not make the analysis of "This is not the only case when the singer faced hate or problems due to the popularity of her own name". To be honest from all of the other problems with this article this is the least you need to worry about. You have included 14 videos of her songs as references violating primary sources for biographies of living peopleFuzzyMagma (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can rephrase that so it won't appear as original research, but that's the problem of the page, not a problem of notability. And which exact sentence of WP:BLPPRIMARY has been violated? --Oleh325 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma I'm still waiting for the reply to my question here. YouTube is the best source to provide the release information there, beause it's literally the platform it has been published on. I've already removed those references and changed release dates to only showing release month, but I'm still curious about what was the problem with these sources. I need EXACT statements from wiki rules which were violated, not some "oh well it doesn't look alright". If there's a rule you imply I'm breaking, please provide it so I can gain better understanding of the problem. Thanks. --Oleh325 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have listed 50% of the sources that I know does not meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources in my reply to Oaktree b, and one ref that I highlighted as irrelevant ref (see above comment). As for the other refs, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material as per WP:BurdenFuzzyMagma (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the explanation above. Does appear somewhat PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not supported by reliable sources. МУЗВАР is a primary source, and references 23781014212326 are from all interviews, listings, and trivial articles. YouTube videos and Instagram are also not reliable. Fancy Refrigerator(talk) 20:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about UNIAN, TSN, Novy channel, INSIDER UA, Gazeta.ua, Focus? There's only one instagram refference, and YouTube ones are to support the statements about release dates. I mean it's better to have sources to support the info, than just to leave it out? --Oleh325 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've updated the page, removed YouTube references where I could (although if I should remove ALL of them — let me know), added more references from other websites than MUZVAR and removed some of the MUZVAR ones. Also, I've changed the sentence which was correctly identified as original research by FuzzyMagma. Let me know if you still think something should be changed, thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry you cannot just remove references and you still have the same article size. When you remove a source this means also removing the information cited from that source. You cannot just shift sources and leave the text. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well why would I change it, if the information is still present on the sources that were left? Or the new ones I've added. --Oleh325 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
new ref 6 and 4 are not reliable too. How did you consider ref 3 to be reliable? I am really not sure if you understand the problem here. please check Wikipedia:Competence is required as now I can see that you do not have the ability to assess sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed those three, those weren't new, I just missed them when changing the other ones. --Oleh325 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2023 (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.