Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rightjust

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rightjust

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

Might be a very talented artist, but I can't find any reliable sources (as defined at WP:RS)) which cover the subject in depth (WP:MUSBIO). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. WP:USUAL applies, of course - if this artist makes it big and gets noted, then an article might end up being appropriate. We're not there yet, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime a hiphop artist from South Carolina receives an entry it is adversely noted we have a whole state worth of artist that we love and support. A lot of legendary art is produced tho it may not get national coverage. I'm beginning to believe this is genre dicrimination and or racism 2607:FB90:6031:D9AC:0:4C:7FEC:8601 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've had that experience. The key to this one (and maybe others you've seen) is Wikipedia's guideline called "notability". Basically, the only subjects (people, albums, songs, ideas, movies, places) that should have their own Wikipedia article are those which have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This page exists so that people can argue one way of the other, but those arguments can only really be based on sourcing. So if you've seen reliable sources (defined at this page: WP:RS) which give Rightjust significant coverage, link to them here and nobody will want to delete it. "Reliable" is a complicated, context-dependent term here, but in general it means magazines, newspapers, journals, books, or websites with a reputation for accuracy and/or editorial oversight. User-generated content, social media, press releases, blogs, and other self-published work typically is not considered reliable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like some particularly notable SC artists have had their articles deleted, I'd recommend creating articles for them in the "Drafts" space. That way you can add to them and solicit feedback from people before moving them to be a regular article (and avoids being taken to deletion shortly after creating the article). I'd be happy to give feedback on any draft articles if you want. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current coverage is not convincing enough for the applicable entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am a fan of southern hip hop and i am very familiar with this artist. i've checked the references and there is enough for notability. seems like the page is a work in progress, so maybe more information may be noted. 2601:5C2:4100:C650:F004:E940:808D:EA1E (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. Doesn't yet meet GNG or criteria for entertainers. Source are very low quality. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 25 February 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.