Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashun VP

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. Sandstein 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fashun VP[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)

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines, let alone WP:GNG. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anyone who can say they're 7 things as this article does in its MOS:FIRST is either going to be clearly notable or clearly not-notable. This falls inter the latter category. There is no RS suggesting he passes GNG or MUSIC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here is no RS suggesting he passes GNG or MUSIC.VViking_TalkEdits 13:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The artist was part of a group that won GA Music awards, which is a major music award. Shouldn't that qualify for WP:MUSICBIO? They also have had a number 1 hit single, supported by several of the RS. The article has been edited with several resources added to support his notability. Jfluence (talk) 2:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the comments given by jfluence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page appears to have been carpet-bombed with sources dumped at the bottom of the page in an attempt to show notability. The majority were extremely weak, and I have removed these with individual edit summaries explaining my reasons for doing so. What now remains is: one reference in 'USL Mag' which smells strongly of a press release or being self-written, but I don't know enough about USL Mag to assess. The remainder are YouTube links which I strongly doubt are adequate sources, but I can't watch YouTube videos right now to assess them, so I'll leave them in place. Overall, my view of the recently added sources is that they are worthless and do nothing to establish notability, so I'm still on the delete side of this. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional text since its subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. The group might perhaps merit in the future a Wikipedia article, on the stregth of their #1 hit in the R&B single charts, but not now. Even so, the individual members of the group do not (let's say, again, not yet) possess independent notability, since that's not inherited. The kamikaze creator of the article has been trying quite hard. Who knows why. But no dice. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 24 May 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.