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. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playa Fly

[edit]
Playa Fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginal rapper that doesn't seem to quite qualify on his own. Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply - YouTube is almost never a reliable source; self-published works are no sign of notability; and YouTube hits are no substitute for actual published information from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean if he did indeed chart - the above link demonstrates this. The article will be improved once the AFD is over, presuming the right outcome is reached.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bad wording on my part there, sorry. But, why wait? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time, and a reluctance to spend time on an article that could be deleted anyway, AFD being what it is. I don't have time to fix every fixable article at AFD before the discussion closes. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There does not need to be 'references' to not be unsourced. Allmusic is a source. An Allmusic link was there. Therefore not unsourced. As simple as that. You say it is still a UBLP. From WP:N "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." The sources shown in the afd need to be considered, something the above delete argument does not do. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic.com appears to have been kicked around the can at WP:RSN over and over again without any definitive consensus on how reliable it is. It appears that the general consensus is that the site is probably OK for bio information, from a quick look - but what part of the article is sourced from it? Looking at the article, it cannot be told if Allmusic is being used as an actual reference or if the link was simply added an external link and nothing more. I'm not contesting whether or not Fly-guy is notable; it seems that he, indeed, is. But this is a BLP and, therefore, merely stating that he is notable via a link in the AfD discussion is not enough - it needs to be verifiable in the article itself. The bottom line that defines my choice of !vote is that the article still has no inline citations, and has its "references" in the same grouping of links as Myspace and wiki links, even after spending two weeks at AfD; that gives the impression, right or wrong, that nobody cares enough to fix it, and that the article will remain in its current state, an unverifably sourced BLP if not a sensu stricto UBLP, after the closure of the AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're judging the subject here, not the current state of the article. If you're not contesting whether the subject is notable, then the correct outcome is to keep it. I've already stated that the article will be improved once kept. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More