Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahati (Musician)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahati (Musician)

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

Non notable Gospel artist, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the current article is speedy-deletion-quality trash. Other refs such as [1] and [2] are slightly better, but don't show notability. This may be WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The 2nd ref in power~enwiki's comment is the sort of thing we need to be able to write an article. So far, there seems to be only this one independent, substantial source. So agree with the TOOSOON. It being marginal, I could be swayed to Keep if what we currently had as an article were a well-written article based on this main source plus other passing mentions; but that is not the case. It is a truly minimal stub, so we lose nothing by deleting now, and when/if this musician's career generates more sources, someone can rewrite from scratch. Martinp (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add if more reliable sources become available I'd be more than happy to send the creator to UNDELETE or failing that they can rewrite I no absolutely no objections to either, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 20 November 2017 (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.