Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangs (hip hop artist)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangs (hip hop artist)

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

This article, under the title Bangs (rapper) was deleted back in January 2011 (and once before in February 2010) as a non-notable artist with no independent references (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangs (rapper) (2nd nomination)). This recreation in January 2011 is an attempt to subvert the deletion process; had it been noticed then it would have been speedily deleted. I see no substantial improvements to the article to change the previous deletion discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, shouldn't the user's account be blocked too if article previously deleted? Asnac (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the re-creator is a different account; it may even be an independent person who legitimately thought "Hey, there's no Wikipedia article on this rapper I like." However, if an admin could check the deleted article and see if the current article creator (User:Found A Dojo) edited the previous article, then, yes, there may be a disruptive editing problem (although, I note that xe hasn't edited at all in over a month). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and I don't see User:Found A Dojo's username in the edit history of the deleted Bangs (rapper). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing some solid references for this fellow - an article about him on Billboard.com, a full interview done by XXL, and an article by MSN Australia, as well as notice by New York Magazine here, Blender here, RedEye here, and mention in connection with Rebecca Black (both are viral stars) in Stuff here. Chubbles (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the xxl and ninemsn sources as references; the billboard is really just notice of a single release, so doesn't seem particularly worthwhile, and the others are too minor to be included (in my opinion). I'm still leaning towards delete, because this seems like just barely enough to meet WP:GNG (and nothing yet to meet WP:MUSIC), but it's a little better. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Chubbles. It is sufficient for it to meet GNG -- if it does, it need not meet wp:music. Meeting either criterion is sufficient; a band need not meet both.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not certain it meets GNG. Two detailed articles is really the bare minimum, and only leads to a "presumption" of notability. But, I could be convinced otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification -- I had understood your prior post to suggest that it just barely met GNG. But my point is just to clarify that it need not meet wp:music, if it meets GNG. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (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.