Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Dextrous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthew (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 9 February 2013 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Does not satisfy notability requirements.

The article has been subject to a request for additional citation since February 2012. It reads like it was written by a promoter. I'm not personally satisfied that the person meets notability requirements following a Google search. I can find no secondary sources that validate notability. It's worth mentioning that Dextrous does not appear to be signed to any of the major genre-specific labels. Nor does it appear he has performed to any significant audience. Matthew (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, whilst the Ivor Novello Awards may be notable and respected, I do not believe notability in this or similar cases to be inherent. Matthew (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not confuse the person stated in the article with J Majik, who previously used the pseudonym in the same 'scene'. Suggest possible redirect. Matthew (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to be notable per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. We should consider any subject in accordance to wiki-rules, but not as our personal satisfication, we have to follow only the rules. Actually this seems to establish the notability and cited source 1 in the article clearly endorse the notability.Justice007 (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to recognise the one, trivial source you've provided (it'd appear to be a small, independent radio station that probably doesn't warrant an article either) that as "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician". Now the most important bit: I cannot see how this article satisfies points two through 12 at all. Matthew (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]