Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IROC (hip-hop artist)

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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IROC (hip-hop artist)

This article about a rapper does contain a fair amount of information and claims of notability... but no actual references to support any of it. All the references cited are links to his myspace and Facebook, and the author has repeatedly added a protection tag to the page despite the fact that no protection has been added for it. There is not a whole lot under WP:MUSIC that this article fulfills, thus unless reliable sources are added to support this artist's notability, it should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources and I can't imagine any emerging. Estemi (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to meet any of the 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, despite being a well-written article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing reliable about this fool. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fool"? Is that really necessary? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said before, well written but unfortantely it is non notable with poor references. Andy (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing else to say really. Chamal ^talk 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iROC is one of the fastest emerging artists in Charlotte's music scene. The article is important in chronicling his growth and inevitable fame. Roc19892005 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And you haven't added a single reliable source that shows it. Might I add that editing an article about yourself constitutes a serious conflict of interest. TheLetterM (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Music coverage in Charlotte is minimal and that further expresses the need for such pages as this. And the article is not about myself. I am not iROC. Roc19892005 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Then why does clicking on your username redirect to the article? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I originally created the page under my username not knowing how to create a page from scratch. I'm new to this wikipedia thing. Roc19892005 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh huh. (*sarcastic nodding*) You just happen to know how to inappropriately use the protection template for your own benefit? Anyway, like the nominator said, the fact that the only references that can be found are to your--oops; I mean, his MySpace and Facebook profiles proves that the article doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Just a note: the creator of this article has just been indefinitely blocked. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources to inherit notability. DiverseMentality 08:07, 13 January 2009 (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.