Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikrok

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 redirect to It Wasn't Me. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rikrok[edit]

[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)

Though the subject was featured in a highly popular song, which fulfills one criterion for WP:MUSICBIO, he does not meet any other criteria, and clearly fails WP:GNG. The information on his life and career is taken from his own MySpace page. Otherwise, I could not find any third party source covering him in a significant way. Merely trivial mentions next to Shaggy in news articles about the song. Throast (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It Wasn't Me if we can't find more sources about Rikrok before this AfD ends. The subject was a featured artist on a song that went to #1 in at least eight countries including the U.S. and U.K. If nothing else, his name should be a redirect to the song he was associated with. Depending on the extent to which this article is improved during the AfD, I might change my recommendation to "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, but considering that he is actually known as "Rik Rok" (instead of "Rikrok"), the misspelled title is yet another reason for deleting this article in my opinion. One could create a new page called "Rik Rok" and make it a redirect but I'm not sure if that would be in line with WP policy. Throast (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions of the name (Rikrok, Rik Rok) would be appropriate as redirects. He is sometimes referred to in the media by the one-word version "Rikrok"; see DanceHallMag, Billboard, and New York Daily News, for example. Redirects are cheap. We don't even need to create a new redirect; Rik Rok already redirects to Rikrok, so if this AfD ends up as a redirect, we can just retarget Rik Rok. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was credited as "RikRok" (with no space) on every version of the single in every country, so it's a very likely search term and should be kept as a redirect, at least. Richard3120 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; subject seems to lack independent notability outside of this one song (which was a banger, but alas). jp×g 23:50, 9 May 2021 (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.