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 speedy keep. Nominator has been indef-blocked for trolling. No prejudice toward a good-faith AFD at any time. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin This article should be deleted because this individual is completely lacking notability. There are no sources identifying notability. The one source is an article in a local paper about an upcoming article, such article are largely about up and comers and local non-notable performers. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. He is not singed by a major record label, he hasn't sold a notable amount of records, no info on record sales at all. No major news sources. Does not meet, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Boomgaylove (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was ... malformed. I've added proper formatting, and trasncluded it on today's (21^st) AfD page, since that was the first time that the wider community will know about it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and speedy close. Nominator keeps blanking article,[1] so we cannot have reasonable discussion. I don't know the subject of Hyphy, and perhaps the nominator does know enough to think this artist is minor. However, on the face of it there are quite a few reliable sources out there that give non-trivial coverage (including feature articles and interviews) with this person. There were two sources when it was nominated. I've added a few more and I think that's barely scratching the surface. He sounds like a fixture, well respected and integrated to the local hip-hop scene (which is one of the most active in the country) despite his young age. But again, I don't know the field. Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  please point those alleged several reliable sources here. "He sounds like" is not a valid argument.Boomgaylove (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It sure is a valid argument, conclusive in fact. If an artist is important in an important scenes, it supports notability. Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  i object, was only following WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A BLP objection is a different issue than nominating for AfD. The information and the source are an interview in a magazine conducted with the subject himself where he apparently talks about his own drug dealing, for which he was arrested and convicted. That is relevant to his bio as a rap musician, and hardly violates BLP. You are not defending BLP anyway by blanking the entire article while nominating it for deletion. Wikidemo (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable Bay Area rapper who gets 46,600 Google hits. Also, sources have now been added to the article. And I can confirm what Wikidemo has already said: this man is notable within the Bay Area hip-hop community. Bash Kash (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  the google hit arguement is not acceptable, and even so, major databases of musicians, news articles, or music website don't show up alongside his name. Largely just myspace myspace and more myspace. It doesn't matter if he is notable in the Bay Area music community, that's not enough for any artist to merit a wikipedia article, he must be of national importance really, nothing against J Stalin himself.Boomgaylove (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - the nominator appears to be bent on removing this artist from the encyclopedia, including removing sourced content and trying to delete the reference (repeatedly) from another article. If the nominator has some special reason to think this artist is not worth learning about on the encyclopedia despite lots of news references I would like to hear it. I don't have any stake in this either way. However, based purely on Wikipedia policies the artist clearly satisfies general notability criteria. Wikidemo (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How does he meet any WP:N? He does not meet absolutely any Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, the burden of proof is on you to backup those claims.Boomgaylove (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong: He meets subcriteria #1, multiple mentions in independent reliable sources (which you keep blanking.) 76.240.230.77 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE - The nominator has repeatedly blanked this article. Not just the potential BLP concerns (none of which are convincing to me) but the whole article, including a major newspaper source. Then, he or she placed a bunch of templates including an invalid protection template, a notability template redundant with this nomination, and an "unreferenced" template after removing all the sources!??! 76.240.230.77 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted above, the sources in the article prove that the article meets criterion #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. --Srleffler (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  published works means books not local newspapers!Boomgaylove (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. Wikipedia:Notability footnote 5: "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." (emphasis added) cab (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the SF Bay Guardian is a perfectly acceptable source. There is enough here to provide notability Gwernol 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just another two-bit rapper in a field full of them. Because of the DIY nature of producing rap recordings, this person's "notability" is inflated. Mentions in newspapers, even the SFBG as noted above, don't necessarily make him notable. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disagree with you ILike2BeAnonymous, but that's exactly what WP:BAND says does make him notable: "...has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". If you disagree with the guidelines, then by all means get consensus to change them. Until then, the purpose of AfD is to see if the article is within the scope of the current rules. Gwernol 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that policy (and agree with it for the most part); I guess my reply to you is that the sources mentioned may not qualify as "non-trivial published works". A passing mention in the SF Bay Guardian doesn't necessarily qualify as anything other than another data point for yet another "artist" who may or may not ever amount to anything. This one seems too small-time, local and indistinguished to have an encyclopedia article written about them. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...plus a profile / pictorial in Slash magazine. Not shabby. The multiple Bay Guardian mentions aren't passing, some of them are 1+ page feature areticles specifically about the artist. I don't think it's our place to insert our independent judgment of a musician being small time or unimpressive if the press decides he is.Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. The nominator is now indefinitely banned for disruptive editing[2]. His conduct in editing the article and this nomination were part of the ban. I've already voiced my opinion that this should be speedily closed as a bad nomination above, so I won't vote twice.Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (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.