Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamite Dylan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Remagoxer please be more careful when nominating articles for deletion. Although this was closed as a delete, if I had caught it earlier I would have closed it on the grounds of not posting a valid deletion criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem please note I did not nominate this, only voted delete. Remagoxer (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite Dylan[edit]

Dynamite Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not recognise "Dynamite Dylan" because, he is too young. Banana19208 (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is your honest rationale "he's too young"? But I think there is a lack of RSs so delete. Remagoxer (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete His age has nothing to do with it. The problem is lack/quality of sources. Most of them are junk, but he does have a reasonably notable profile in Billboard, but the fact it is an interview consisting of him talking about his aspirations gives me pause. Plus he does have a top 40 digital download appearance, albeit in collaboration with another artist. For this reason, it is a "weak" delete. A few more decent example of reliable source coverage could get me to change my mind. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (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.