Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teflon Don (rapper)

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. Secret ^account 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon Don (rapper)[edit]

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

Incubate, if someone commits to fix up the article. If nobody volunteers, then delete. Article is spammy and fails WP:NPOV. It should not be kept in mainspace. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument boils down to a similar premise as WP:RUBBISH. Barring occasional exceptions such as unreferenced and disparaging BLPs, or copyvios, we delete articles that cannot possibly be improved without external factors such as the subject becoming notable, not because nobody wants to work on them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/advertising articles are a perfectly valid reason to delete, for reasons which I hope are obvious enough that I don't have to explain them here. Indeed, it even says so right in the WP:RUBBISH link you posted: "problems like... advertising... need to be resolved as quickly as possible." Sometimes it's possible to edit the spam away, but that's a big thankless task people tend not to want to take on, and in this case I'd say the subject wouldn't be notable even if someone cleaned it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some confusion here - I agree with your above viewpoint that there's no point cleaning up an article if the subject isn't notable to start with. I've cleaned up the article a bit, removing (imho) the most blatant violations of NPOV, intend look at the article later today and make a decision on whether sufficient sources exist both on and off the article. I get confused about the term "spam", which I had took to mean "the same thing repeated lots of times". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's even the slightest doubt that the article is intended as advertising. If the content itself isn't enough to convince you (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), check out this edit, where someone (almost certainly Donald himself) asks for SEO tips about how to format it to get the picture to show up prominently on Google searches. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. According to the article, career pinnacle was winning an award from a local website that we don't have an article on. One of the links is to his MP3 album on Amazon, which is ranked #689,750 (the CD version of the same ablum doesn't even have a rank). The article also claims he's been active since 1996, so after 17 years he's probably about as notable as he's likely to get. In summary, doesn't meet our music artist notability guidelines and is unlikely to anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see that this article is so bad that deletion is the answer to the quality issue. With repsect to notability, He seems to just fall short. The sourcing in the article don't do it for me. I found this article which features him as the primary subject, but is an interview. On the whole, not enough for me to say notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look through the sources, and I can conclude the guy is marginally notable, but only for suing Rick Ross. That's a BIO1E and therefore he should not have a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Rick Ross, if anything. He's accomplised quite a bit but doesn't seem to be notable as a singer, just notable for his lawsuit. Shame really cause his songs are kinda catchy.--24.145.65.56 (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2013 (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.