Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverie Love

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. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverie Love

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested speedy, concern WP:N and advert - procedural route to AfD Tawker (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person does appear to be an underground hip-hop performer who has been on tour, has a YouTube presence, is a clothes designer, etc., judging by the articles I found about her. I don’t know enough about the topic to be able to say much about the quality of the publications or the quality of her work but she appeared notable enough to me to have a stub article that someone more knowledgeable could expand upon. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG. Just because people have a youtube page and go on tour does not mean they are notable. We need sourcing to show that a person is notable and that is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole cited source is not reliable per WP:RSDISCOGS. No indication that multiple source of signficant coveage from inependent, reliable sources exists.—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original version had additional citations that looked legit to me but I don’t know enough or care enough about the subject of underground hip-hop to establish the credibility of those sources that were questioned, so I didn’t add them back. I do think it’s important for there to be more coverage of women in every field and I would hope someone with more interest and expertise would take a look at this rapper and expand on the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a speedy would have been appropriate, and draftify, a second option but let's think about why an admin would choose AfD and not draftify. One reason I can see in this situation to not draftify is that it's not notable, and/or unlikely to be expanded because there are no RS to cite, so why not simply go with an A7 and save valuable time. Until the community decides to make Twitter, YouTube and other such online sites RS, this BLP is not notable. Atsme 💬 📧 15:16, 3 June 2022 (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.