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. Arguments presenting sources that meet GNG have not been refuted. Online sources can certainly be independent, in-depth, and reliable.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
do not show
significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNGGermanKity (
talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. I accepted this at AfC because I felt it met the bare minimum for
WP:GNG, having around three independent sources that provided non-trivial mentions. These would be from
The Face (magazine) (a
full interview),
Flaunt (another
shorter interview) and from Affinity Magazine (
analysis of his single + interview). I don't see any reason to doubt the reliability or independence of these sources, except maybe the Flaunt one, where his single debuted. There are nonetheless two other less substantial sources, one from
Paper (magazine), that support his notability.
Yeeno (
talk) 🍁 18:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - I'm confused by the comment above listing sources then saying clearly not notable... Is there any further explanation? Is there a suggestion that an online source is unacceptable? Anyway, those are the same sources that Yeeno discussed (minus the YouTube link) where a brief explanation on each was given. The first source from The Face may be an interview, but it is still independent as the author provides a good introduction to the subject before even getting to the interview. That plus Affinity is enough to satisfy multiple sources to meet GNG. -
2pou (
talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (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.
The result was keep. Arguments presenting sources that meet GNG have not been refuted. Online sources can certainly be independent, in-depth, and reliable.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
do not show
significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNGGermanKity (
talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. I accepted this at AfC because I felt it met the bare minimum for
WP:GNG, having around three independent sources that provided non-trivial mentions. These would be from
The Face (magazine) (a
full interview),
Flaunt (another
shorter interview) and from Affinity Magazine (
analysis of his single + interview). I don't see any reason to doubt the reliability or independence of these sources, except maybe the Flaunt one, where his single debuted. There are nonetheless two other less substantial sources, one from
Paper (magazine), that support his notability.
Yeeno (
talk) 🍁 18:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - I'm confused by the comment above listing sources then saying clearly not notable... Is there any further explanation? Is there a suggestion that an online source is unacceptable? Anyway, those are the same sources that Yeeno discussed (minus the YouTube link) where a brief explanation on each was given. The first source from The Face may be an interview, but it is still independent as the author provides a good introduction to the subject before even getting to the interview. That plus Affinity is enough to satisfy multiple sources to meet GNG. -
2pou (
talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (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.