Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes

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. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes

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

Unencyclopedic article about a downloadable mixtape with no sourced notability. Previously prodded, but prod notice was removed by an anon with no explanation and no improvements to make notability more apparent — and I think it likely that we'll need to watch for inappropriate removal of the AFD tag, too. Technically also a BLP violation as it names the website's whois registrant for no particularly compelling or non-original research reason. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can find no coverage of this site, the article offers no detail on the site's achievements, impact or historical significance, fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails notability, appears to be promotion containing illegal download links. May even qualify for Speedy . This is taken from the edit summary of the page creation: "(←Created

page with 'Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes, aka Exclusive Tunes, is a highly popular illegal mixtape available through various pirate sites and torrent sites like [http://www.mininova.or...')" which says it all right thereAlan - talk 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this gets deleted, Exclusive tunes is nothing but a redirect created for the name that should be deleted as well. Alan - talk 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also note, this article has been deleted via Speedy once before, in April 2009, making it a recreation of a deleted article for the same reasoons. Alan - talk 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. WP:CSD permits speedy deletion on those grounds if there was a discussion previously, not necessarily if it was previously speedied. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the speedy would be for the illegal content the article is linking to. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia hasn't changed it's policy on this Alan - talk 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True - and you can recommend a Speedy Delete here on those grounds. Better, I think, to give it the full seven days and put it to bed. Once an AFD has closed on an article, recreations are deletable outright under CSD G4; someone who wants to re-do the article would need consensus at DRV, which - given the content - would be long in coming. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only reason for not going the speedyroute is there are rare instances where such content may be notable, even though I can't find anything on this stuff particularly, AFD will do fine with it. Alan - talk 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; you just seemed to be recommending that we could speedy it just because it had been deleted before. The legality of the topic is a better reason, admittedly, but that didn't seem to be what you were alluding to. My apologies if I misunderstood. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*not a problem. It's a diffacult issue these days witht he amount of bootlegs, illegal filesharing going on, plus song and album leaks, which usually aren't notable, but again, on rare occasions they get enough press to make them somewhat notable (sad, isn't it?). No one who's really up on this DJ seems to be able to bring forward any sort fo notability thus far.. so our original hunches about it seem to be correct Alan - talk 19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for these downloadable pirated mixtapes. Joe Chill (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get jiggy with it and delete, illegal download links? Really? JBsupreme (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the above. No notability is evident. The use of alternative distribution channels isn't a deal-breaker, but it sure doesn't speak to the importance of the subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, after reading the edit summaries of this article, added to the fact that it's a recreated article after a speedy delete (due to illegal download links and such), recommend salt with delete to prevent recreation Alan - talk 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Talk:Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes too, if you haven't already... Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and what does that prove? you could rob a bank, say 'I didn't rob it, i only borrowed'... fact is, you still robbed the bank.

Some of these people just make me laugh Alan - talk 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously, numerous problems, most significantly fails WP:NOTE as lacks multiple independent reliable sources demonstrating notability. Adambro (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2010 (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.