Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadetheblackk

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. Per everybody except a socker and his socks. Sandstein 07:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fadetheblackk[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)

Rapper with coverage consisting of blog posts, promo sound-bites, and three times the same rehashed press release. His "ranking on the artist music charts" seems to be at - 1349? (but I'm possibly reading that site wrong...). Probably TOOSOON, at this point pretty much an exercise in raking together shreds of notability that don't add up to WP:NARTIST. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hell no. Pure spam. Someone is working hard to make him look important. Putting out lot's of PR pretending to be press coverage. Looking at the articles they say f all. Saying Fadetheblackk hasn't actually done anything and hasn't been noticed but is still important for nothing. Strange. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not spam . The artist is actually well known in the Hip Hop Community. how can you pretend press coverage that's a joke GuruNYC (User talk:GuruNYC) 18:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Striking confirmed sock of David Arriela per SPI. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For any Artist and performers, it's usually necessary to search for both stage name and birth name, also this artist has 13 approved google news references https://g.co/kgs/ixyQxN maybe some editors can help elaborate on this topic but should not be removed BigGuyFly (User talk:BigGuyFly) 19:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC) — BigGuyFly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking confirmed sock of David Arriela per SPI. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good day to all, I have been working daily to improve the article which I made many corrections to get the article from being deleted, and for all who are not familiar with music or any other entertainment business *it's called a publicist* which all artist and celebrities have and use. I posted articles from editors not just blogs. Once again all are welcome to help improve rather than being harsh. David Arriela(User talk:David Arriela) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's clarify this - are you the subject's publicist? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not a publicist nor have any relationship with the artist I do like his music and had an opportunity to see him perform at power105:1, I'm a blogger for the Times Of India and a social media consultant David Arriela(User talk:David Arriela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.239.132.134 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance, do you have any COI? Is this article somehow related to your job as a blogger? Thank you. William2001^(talk) 01:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. I find it slightly suspicious that there are two users with nearly no experience, GuruNYC and BigGuyFly, who support keeping this article. Am I claiming that the opinions of inexperienced users do not matter? Of course not, but the fact that two people created an account (solely) to make an opinion on this discussion as their very first edit seems odd to me. Possible Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? William2001^(talk) 01:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SPI pending. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a lot of sources, but on review, they appear to be the result of a PR blitz. There simply aren't the kind of high-quality, independent, reliable sources offering deep coverage that are required to pass WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll add that a good number of those sources are also user-submitted. Sock-puppet "keep" arguments by SPA editor who created the article is also noted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:31, 1 July 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.