Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nas Daily

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nas Daily

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

A number of well-versed editors have now attempted to edit this page down into something that doesn't violate WP:BLP and we have ended up with this article, even after looking for sources and giving the original author a lot of time to edit the page. I don't doubt that there is a WP:COI here with comments in the original edit, such as Includes a list of some of the top press releases, interviews, etc. about Nas and his videos? Shit that will make him look super famous. Bollywood movie. Commercial for Fuze D. People whose videos he collaborates on or shows up in???. Although AfD is supposed to disregard such problems, and look at the article itself in the present state, I think it still needs to be taken into consideration. This is an article created by a WP:SPA WP:PAID user using a small number of references that don't really meet the WP:BIO requirements hence the AfD. The promo material has been removed, and so I would like to propose deletion or alternatively moving this to draft so it can go through WP:AfC rather than skirt various Wiki rules. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 01:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there are sufficient sources on this person that it is worthwhile to keep this article. This person does appear to have a consistently significant amount of likes and views on his Facebook page as well as at least four independent sources talking about them and only them. While it might need to be reformed, it is worth keeping in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williambellwisdo (talk • contribs) 03:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I don't think his likes and a couple of fluff articles are enough to outweigh the skeletal nature of the article and its seeming origins as a WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2017 (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.