Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich The Kid (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich The Kid[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC; almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources, except for three short mentions in XXL: [1], [2], [3]. These XXL articles offer a thin, often trivial biography that barely support notability. The rest of the sources cited are the usual online record vendors, and his Twitter account. Also appears to meet none of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps He passes WP:GNG, in depth coverage in: Forbes, Complex Magazine, W Magazine, he is mentioned in: Billboard, Rolling Stone, Vibe, Highs Nobiety, Spin, BET, MTV, all which meets number 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Also, you have failed to explain how and where does it doesn't meet WP:BASIC.Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources significant coverage in notable magazines and forbes online identified above so that WP:BASIC is now passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable at this time. Never charted and nothing of substance beyond, local interest. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I mean, there's an in depth article here in Forbes, a highly notable magazine. This alone is basically enough to meet WP:GNG. And then there are 34 references. What do you people want. 100 references, 200? Sure some of the refs are trivial but some aren't. OK, I get that the Forbes ref was not in the article, maybe you all did not know about it, I put it in as an external link. So now there's not excuse for not keeping this article. Herostratus (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears some worthwhile work has been done on this article since nomination. While there are still some obvious problematic sources that are cluttering things up, notability is established with enough good references to indicate significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2016 (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.