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 per consensus, failing WP:MUSIC at all levels. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K-Rino[edit]

K-Rino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Book Number 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Has several albums, but none on a major label or notable indy. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added one of his albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both The artist is not notable in any way. I have not found any reliable sources pertaining to him or his albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Guitardude3600 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seemingly vast body of work (for such an "unknown"). The must come a point where an artist is notable no matter what label he's on. Mallanox 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this artist is not notable in any way. I am confused by the comment above by Mallanox, it does not matter how many albums this person has released if no one is buying them. If this were about an author who self published 12 books on multi-level marking I'm sure the article would be deleted already. The point is that there is no third party coverage on this artist because he is not a "prominent" musician of any sort, contrary to the peacock phrased introduction of the article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use it as an argument but I'd point out that Amazon.co.uk have this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Worst-Rapper-Alive-Us-K-Rino/dp/B000AOEN86/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1212613167&sr=8-7 in stock. This isn't Amazon.com. The British site has imported stock of the album. He must have an international fanbase, no way would a retailer like Amazon be around today if they had a history of stocking turkeys. I worked for a record shop that did, it's no longer in business! Mallanox 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and translate the German article about him, which has much more information and is better curated. You'd think we could write better articles about music in our own language... Chubbles (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there information in the German article that is going to address the notability concerns or will we just delete an article with more information about a non-notable subject when we're done? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The presence of the German article indicates that he's gotten significant international attention; we're probably not looking hard enough for sourcing. Remember, not everything reliable comes up in a Google search. Chubbles (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The presence of the German article indicates that there is a German article. The discussion here is whether or not the article meets notability criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Music#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. It doesn't. It fails 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. We have no suggestion that it passes 4, 7, 11 or 12. It seems you believe the artist might pass #1, solely in sources that we haven't been able to find. We have no evidence of that. If you can find substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources, we're all ears. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ultimately, I think this sort of shoot-now-and-ask-questions-later attitude is destructive to the project and robs people of legitimately encyclopedic information. But I don't have a university library handy anymore to prove you wrong, so you'll end up "winning" this one. Maybe some year a dedicated editor will make underground hip-hop a WP:BIAS project, because it's in sore need of it. Chubbles (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This dishonest attempt at character assassination of the nominator is disrespectful and I strongly urge you to reconsider your words. There is no shooting first and asking questions later here. We have had far too much mis-information and hoax-related garbage linger on Wikipedia for years and years, virtually undetected until someone raises the red flag. Too many times we've presented our readers with the false and wholly unverifiable information because fellow editors are afraid to remove in fear of being called "destructive". And if I understand WP:AFD correctly, we are presenting the community at large approximately five days, possibly more, the opportunity to find reliable sources to support this biographical article. That's called asking first. JBsupreme (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:25, 5 June 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.