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.
Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ANYBIO. Trivial paragraph-long mentions in industry sources and on gossip websites. One song, Coordinate, did chart, but Billboard credits "Travis Scott featuring Blac Youngsta". A guest vocal does not lead to notability per
WP:MUSICBIO.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I would suggest these sources only confirm that this article should be deleted based on a lack of notability and reliable secondary sources. Allow me to comment on each of these "good sources":
[12] - two paragraph promo; no biographical content.
[13] - two paragraph promo; no biographical content.
[16] - vacuous, National Inquirer style commentary about a "beef" this person is having with
Young Dolph. Hopefully, "Dolph you a bitch, you a soft ass n*a, if you got a problem, say you got a problem" cannot be reasonably interpreted as meaningful biographical content.
[17] - this is a report of an encounter this person had with the police. These are reported in the media thousands of times each day across the country; it does not make the person reported on notable.
[18] - a short biographical article in a local newspaper.
[19] - a short biographical article in a local newspaper.
[20] - a paragraph-long review of one of his songs.
[21] - another report of his encounter with the police; no biographical content.
User:Xboxmanwar is indeed correct, this biography is rich in interviews (a primary source) and thin on reliable
secondary sources, which is why is should be deleted. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", per
WP:BASIC.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
21:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Poor article but that's not a reason to delete the charting with a guest vocal and the reliable sources shown by BigGuy make him pass GNG. It needs work, not deletion. The person who found the sources being banned doesn't matter either, the sources still exist.
GuzzyG (
talk)
14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Notability (music) specifically states: "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion". Charting with a guest vocal and a paragraph or two in a local paper does not bestow notability.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
22:35, 7 October 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.
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.
Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ANYBIO. Trivial paragraph-long mentions in industry sources and on gossip websites. One song, Coordinate, did chart, but Billboard credits "Travis Scott featuring Blac Youngsta". A guest vocal does not lead to notability per
WP:MUSICBIO.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I would suggest these sources only confirm that this article should be deleted based on a lack of notability and reliable secondary sources. Allow me to comment on each of these "good sources":
[12] - two paragraph promo; no biographical content.
[13] - two paragraph promo; no biographical content.
[16] - vacuous, National Inquirer style commentary about a "beef" this person is having with
Young Dolph. Hopefully, "Dolph you a bitch, you a soft ass n*a, if you got a problem, say you got a problem" cannot be reasonably interpreted as meaningful biographical content.
[17] - this is a report of an encounter this person had with the police. These are reported in the media thousands of times each day across the country; it does not make the person reported on notable.
[18] - a short biographical article in a local newspaper.
[19] - a short biographical article in a local newspaper.
[20] - a paragraph-long review of one of his songs.
[21] - another report of his encounter with the police; no biographical content.
User:Xboxmanwar is indeed correct, this biography is rich in interviews (a primary source) and thin on reliable
secondary sources, which is why is should be deleted. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", per
WP:BASIC.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
21:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Poor article but that's not a reason to delete the charting with a guest vocal and the reliable sources shown by BigGuy make him pass GNG. It needs work, not deletion. The person who found the sources being banned doesn't matter either, the sources still exist.
GuzzyG (
talk)
14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Notability (music) specifically states: "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion". Charting with a guest vocal and a paragraph or two in a local paper does not bestow notability.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
22:35, 7 October 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.