Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Bigg

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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bigg[edit]

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

I previously speedily deleted this article under WP:CSD#A7; discussions with the article's creator lead me to feel that the issue is borderline enough that it should go through AfD. I still believe the article should be deleted. There is no coverage of the person outside of blogs and other SPS. The rapper has one album that charted, but only on the "Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Catalog Albums". That's a minor chart, and doesn't indicate any airplay whatsoever. The purpose of using charting as a substitute for GNG (see WP:BAND) is that there's a presumption that charting artists must have had some coverage somewhere, even if we can't find it. However, since this chart doesn't include airplay, there's no reason to just assume that coverage exists. Unless some evidence can be found (and I couldn't find any myself), I think this fails WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the article gets posted again and again then there is a good reason to keep it. Senor Taichi (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been posted "again and again". It was posted twice. And even if you were right, that is in no way an indication the article should be kept. I've had people post hoax articles multiple times, biographies of themselves, etc. The question is whether or not the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article wouldn't be reposted if it wasn't notable. It must be a well-known subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Taichi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the most ridiculous argument against deletion ever made in the history of AFD. That's like saying "because he's been caught speeding 20 times, it must mean his allowed to speed". Continual re-creation does not mean that the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines, it means someone a) has too much time on their hands, and b) has a bizarre sense of policy interpretation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree if an article is deleted again and again then there must be something wrong with it. No need to keep resubmitting it, which as Qwyrxian says is not a reason why the article should be kept. But if you continue to resubmit surely you have to ask questions of yourself instead of bulldozing the article on. GAtechnical (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, also because the two links on the page are primary sources. GAtechnical (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a brief CMJ write-up [1], two Press-Register articles which discuss him and his role in a documentary [2][3], and an Allmusic link showing that two of his albums placed on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart [4], a step up from the catalog charts but still a notch below the main Billboard 200. Gong show 12:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—there may be some coverage, but nothing substantial to pass WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've looked at the sources that Gongshow found. The CMJ is about an album, not the person, and quite passing coverage. The other two sources appears to be blogs; but even if we were to consider those WP:RS, I'm not sure they establish notability--they basically note him as a crime victim (including the creation of a documentary on the crime that received only minimal screening). If, however, the article is kept on that basis, we'll need to 1) take those sources to WP:RSN to see if there's a community consensus that they are acceptable sources and, 2) rewrite the article to focus on the shooting, since that would apparently be what makes him notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 4 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.