Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key!

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key!

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

Deprodded without explanation. Nothing to show it passes WP:GNG, or WP:NMUSIC. Current citations do nothing to go to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what do you mean by "Current citations do nothing to go to notability." But the first reference is a feature article about him in Complex (magazine), so the suggestion that there is "nothing" is simply not true. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feeble references. The sole credible source, Complex, runs a puff piece written around the subject’s own claims about how important he is, so I'm not convinced this constitutes "significant" coverage.The others (UPROXX, Hotnewhiphop,) solicits and accepts artists wishing to promote themselves. The rest are blatant user generated. If this subject at all merits wikipedia notability it is possibly for his role in the founding of the Two-9 collective, which in itself is of dubious notability with similar problematic references. But that's not the article that's been nominated for deletion. This one is. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one WP:RS = no significant, independent, reliable coverage. Nothing in WP:BAND appears to be satisfied, either. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:42, 11 December 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.