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 delete. Mango juice^talk 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Average Homeboy (second nomination)

[edit]

Positively asserts lack of notability, "crap off teh internets", already deleted once by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average Homeboy but not quite a repost, does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this may sound ridiculous, but the last time I came to check this page (when it was deleted), I was outraged. As far as internet memes go, this one's rather popular, and Denny actually has a rather large catalogue of songs/videos. I think I actually, honestly enjoy the song "I'm the Blaze". I think that he skims notability, just making it. If Numa Numa has a listing, then the Average Homeboy should as well. If nothing else, this should be merged onto a page of memes.--C.Logan 20:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote this article because I came across a news article on the subject, and it seemed interesting to cover especially since sources were available. Notability is established by multiple non-trivial sources from the mainstream media, in articles that are exclusively on the subject (not passing mentions). I don't see what harm it could possibly do by staying, so long as it is kept to the neutral, referenced facts (as I have endeavored to do). --Delirium 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So please source it. You know we have trouble with crap off teh internets. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did! Did you miss the section labeled "references"? --Delirium 15:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, seems like it is notable.Articles listed in refs appear on google archives:[1][2]Moreover, I remember something on VH1 about this subject.daveh4h 00:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got the RS that can be verified. the_undertow ^talk 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not as much of an internet phenomenon as a 15 minutes of fame local interest story. From what I can tell, the Cleveland article is a collection of Youtube-related stories. There tends to be a train of thought that if it's on the internet and it made a newspaper, it deserves a Wikipedia article immediately- compare this to any other random topic that gets mentioned in two newspapers. If there was another story published (one not within a month of these articles), I'd probably change my mind. --Wafulz 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For what it's worth, I do think that any random topic that gets mentioned in two newspapers deserves an article, and I frequently create articles on them. Interestingly, they almost never get suggested for deletion unless they hit someone's "I don't like internet-related articles" filter... nobody seems to object that I've written articles on marginally-notable symphony conductors who've been mentioned in only two newspapers. --Delirium 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Wafulz and nom. Does not meet wikipedia criteria for notability on biographic or musician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per User:Wafulz. His 15 minutes of fame is up. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources offered are not properly linked and cannot be verified without searching through the entire archives. It would behoove (<--cool word) the editors to make the references easy to follow using one of the suggested formats. JodyB_talk 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of major notability. After taking a look at the second ref mentioned (which was a pain in the ass to find), the article seems to be focused on YouTube and not this person in particular. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the basic standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, even by basic standards he doesn't make it. Since he hasn't won any awards or placed on any charts or really done anything, we have to go by the depth and coverage of the sources. We have one good in-depth source and one that mentions him in a much broader context less than a month from the other source- I would no sooner see this as notable coverage than I would for the local kitten parade which gets local media attention. --Wafulz 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, by basic standards he definitely does. There's more than enough information from third party sources to sustain an article here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on account of WP:V. The second reference in the article hints that he might get a side mention. The first is a maybe, but one, I won't be able to verify, and two, it's only one reliable source - and we need a bit more than one. As such, WP:LOCAL may apply here, if only on the fringe of it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:V is your issue, there's no concern because there's plenty of verifiable sources. As for WP:LOCAL, the two papers I found were from PEnnsylvania and Cleveland, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I don't necessarily agree with the premise of Dennis' argument, one and a half sources is not "plenty". --Wafulz 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. To be fair there have been other sources: The Fresno Bee (11 March 2007), The Philadelphia Inquirer (22 July 2006), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (15 October 2006) and three other articles on him by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (earlier there was a comment that the Plain Dealer article was more about general internet stuff they had an article on 9 June 2006 entitled: "Before Vanilla Ice, there was Denny Blaze"). Also there was a mention on Keith Olbermann's show. There may be many reasons to delete this artilce but lack of sources doesn't seem to be one of them. Makgraf 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you link some of those? I want to check them out (I'm always skeptical about "internet phenomena" articles). --Wafulz 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main objective of wikipedia is higher education, the "average homeboy" does not advance the education of wikipedia users. If you have ever seen the video the average homeboy, its nothing but horrible rapping, and stupid effects. It has no real educational value at all. --Acorn98 04:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your premise is completely untrue; the "main objective" of Wikipedia is compiling knowledge, not specifically "higher education". --Delirium 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering this guy solely as a music artist he would be an A7 speedy candidate without a second thought. That he has become something of an internet phenomenon is (I'm sure) very nice for him, but my reading of WP:BIO would mean that he'd have to be an internationally world famous internet phenomenon (like that damnable Crazy Frog) in order to be considered for inclusion on this basis alone. But he patently isn't having got media attention only from a couple of local papers. 86.140.3.176 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above was written by User:A1octopus who had forgotten to sign in.

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.