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. Sandstein 09:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcakke[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has existed in two separate locations, one at CupcakKe and one at Cupcakke. The original title was the former, but that article was deleted in 2016 following the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CupcakKe. This newer article seems to have been built specifically to circumvent the original afd, and I was initially unaware of the former article until I an editor left a message asking for the capital letter variant article - which was deleted and salted due to multiple repeated attempts to recreate the article at or near its original configuration- arose. Before I do any recreating and any redirecting, though, I want this issue resettled. Do we really need an article for the artist, and if so, where is it going to be at. If not, do we delete and salt both page variants, or just delete and hope for the best. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Where is the deletion criteria? There is none in your explanation whatsoever, you just talk about the previous article that got deleted. 344917661X (Talk) 11:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I entertained G4 for a few days, but that doesn't strictly apply. I still have notability/significance concerns, and given the large number of what look to be fan accounts or burner accounts I wonder if there may be a sock farm here to for involved in constantly recreating the article. Insofar as it applies here, I have concerns about her notability under most of the music criteria - I'm not seeing 1,2, or 3 placed records, nor golden albums, nor chart performances or awards, and while there are a number of cites some of those are questionable by Wikipedia standards (twitter and Instagram, for example, wouldn't be what I'd consider independent, 3rd party sources and yet I see no less than 3 mentions of those sites in the reference section). It is my opinion that the article should be relisted here for input on where exactly it stands, and if you look at close enough you can see the cracks I'm talking about. Now whether those cracks make it deletable or whether they are SOFIXIT cracks is what we are here to decide. (Also, I concede I forgot to include a valid deletion criteria, thanks for pointing that out. Its been a long-ish day, so I'm hoping a little sleep will get me back on track.) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for understanding and explaining why the article should be deleted. Now let's see how this AFD turns out. 344917661X (Talk) 13:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I nommed her article for AfD the first time around. At the time she didn't (in my estimation) meet our KEEP criteria. I think she's received significant coverage since then.[1][2][3][4]. And while the article may have been created at Cupcakke to circumvent the salting at CupcakKe, it probably should have been created at Cupcakke anyway, since we're not beholden to cute stylization. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyphoidbomb. The primary reason for the deletion of older articles about Cupcakke was WP:TOOSOON, but I think the article is different enough and there are enough sources released since then to establish notability. Nanophosis (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, there were some shenanigans with first AFD in trying to circumvent the deletion, but per subsequent coverage in significant, reliable sources (Rollings Stone, Vulture, etc.) the subject does meet notability criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This rapper/singer is notable. Still a good catch by the nominator. In these cases a redirect can suffice but this definitely needed some work! Thank you, TomStar81, for being on top of this! gidonb (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO and the general notability guide, as demonstrated by Cyphoidbomb. — sparklism ^hey! 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the public bathroom portrait, this biography describes a notable rapper. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - everyone else above has already explained why the rapper has become notable since the first AfD. I will add that if this version of the article was an attempt to get around the first AfD, perhaps by someone who was unaware of the proper procedures, then the article might have to be moved so the title includes whatever upper-case K's she is using. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very much notable at this point. — 🦊 02:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having your song named one of the best of a given year in its category by Rolling Stone is a pretty good indication of notability, I'd say. Satisfies WP:BAND. EnPassant (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2018 (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.