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. Sockpuppetry aside, the sources Rhododendrites addressed were considered by several experienced editors to meet WP:GNG, and in fact, once those sources were in view, there were no arguments indicating deletion. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Average Homeboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm of the opinion that the previous three nominations are reason enough. gsk 08:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note: part of the reason I'd argued for this to go through AfD again is because the article had far more coverage when it was re-created than it did at previous versions of the article here and at Denny Blaze. (previous versions either had none or only about 2 sources) There has been some further coverage in 2010 (Time magazine) and in 2011, and while I'm unsure if it's enough to justify an article, I do think that it should be looked at again and judged on the current sourcing. If the current sourcing isn't enough, we should then salt the pages. It's just that this is a bit more than what was at previous versions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering these facts regarding the "Average Homeboy" article. "Rayhazen" — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above struck due to confirmed sockpuppetry -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Rayhazen: Please read WP:WAX and WP:OSE. Speaking about other topics as a defense of another is rarely helpful. What we may consider is that the previous deletions of Average Homeboy-related articles were 7 years ago and Denny Blaze was two years ago,[1][2][3] based more on how the article were written and sourced and less on any animus toward the entertainer... and his career, while not earth-shattering, has not sat completely still.[4][5] There actually may be room for an article on he and his works, if neutral and properly sourced. I suggest you to build one here: User:Rayhazen/sandbox/Denny Blaze and seek input from experienced editors (specially those who commented at earlier discussions) in making it better and more suitable for mainspace. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sandboxing as an interim until the article is vastly improved and up to general Wikipedia standards. gsk 18:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GSK False Claims of Sock Puppetry

GSK is obviously upset that I have contested the deletion of the Wikipedia Article, "Average Homeboy." I would like to complain that GSK isn't following common Wikipedia Procedures with his lack of respect for other editors. Not only did I contest the deletion of the article, but also Tokyogirl79 did too. I am 100 percent confident that any admin will find that we are 2 different editors. No Sock Puppetry has occurred with this argument to prevent deletion. Rayhazen Rayhazen Rayhazen (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You actually think I'm upset? And contrary to your comment on my talk page, I don't believe Tokyogirl is absolutely against its deletion either. She seems to be in between keeping it and deleting it. gsk 06:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fairly undecided, myself. I do think that it could squeak by, but I can understand where the arguments for deletion are coming from. I mostly want this judged on the new sources, so that way we can show that we have taken them into consideration for whatever way this eventually goes- keep or delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why I suggested it be re-built in a sandbox and under guidance. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that's a good suggestion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete While it seems to be popular, I don't think the importance was demonstrated by any of the refs. While there are lots of sources, but many mention this video as a "best of" or "worst 10" type collection. It also does not seem to meet the more stringent notability guideline for a song WP:NMUSIC. However it may meet WP:NWEB, which is significantly more lenient in this regard. It is also hard to decide on which criteria to use since it appears this person has begun trying to take their music out into live venues. Thus would it not be judged under WP:NMUSIC, since WP:NWEB refers to "content solely distributed on the internet"? Beakermeep^(talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was myself considering it under WP:NWEB type criteria since the coverage is for the video as a whole rather than just the song. I figured it wouldn't pass NMUSIC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - I haven't been watching/following this article and didn't participate in previous AfDs but I'm a little surprised to see this one as so controversial. Just checking Denny's website provides a few more newspaper/magazine stories, several of which are features/profiles. Most are local and likely wouldn't be sufficient on their own, but combined with what's already used in the article I find it to be far past the threshold of GNG/NPEOPLE. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notorious enough by every measure. LoverOfArt (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. I know it's unusual to do a third relist, but given the extensive AfD history this article has had, and the sockpuppetry which has affected the current AfD, I felt it was worthwhile to run this for one more week in the hopes of generating a clear consensus. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep — Meets WP:GNG. STATic message me! 02:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The link provided by Rhododendrites shows that the subject has received sig coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2014 (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.