Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgiato Blow

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 keep‎. Participants reached consensus that sources exist to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiato Blow[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)

Not noteworthy per WP:BIO Rosicrucian ^Talk 02:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites Vice and the Independent, both of which are major publications. I think he has suitable notability. Di (they-them) (talk)
~~Delete~~ To expand upon my reason for nominating this article for deletion, short-term notoriety does not necessarily lead to long-term notability. This person is barely a footnote in the current movement to boycott Target, which itself will likely fade from the news in a month or two. The claim that the subject of the article is a "pioneer of the Trumpist hip hop subgenre of 'MAGA rap'" is dubious, as political affiliation does not define a subgenre. At best, this article would benefit from being merged into a larger one about right-wing anti-LGBT advocacy. --Rosicrucian ^Talk 13:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
struck delete vote by the nominator as the nomination statement counts as the delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the nominator is allowed to vote on deletion discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can; to be fair, nominating the article for deletion is a delete vote. Otherwise, they'd nominate it for deletion and ask to keep it? Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This gentleman expresses a view that is in no way contrary to the laws of the United States. Deleting this entry would be tantamount to censoring a differing opinion in a totalitarian dictatorship. On the other hand, a person who has managed to reach the number one position on the US charts deserves to have his entry in Wikipedia. In comparision, many much more obscure individuals have their profile on Wikipedia. --92.184.97.132 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not an article subject has expressed views contrary to the laws of the US is not relevant here. There are plenty of articles about terrorists, serial killers, tax evaders, and so on.

The article is being considered for deletion in accordance with WP:N. Remember that Wikipedia is a private entity and not censored. Only content that violates relevant policy or laws of the US is removed. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with his opinions, the deletion discussion is about whether he has actual notability. We don't delete articles based on whether we agree with the people they're about or not. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't worried about censorship and the laws of the US aren't relevant to the discussion debate here. Wikipedia isn't strictly American either, we keep a world view here.Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Conservatism, Politics, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Independent is about the only coverage in RS I can find, rest are all supermarket tabloids without notability for wikipedia. Vice is an iffy source. We'd need one more strong source to !keep Oaktree b (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has been covered by various media outlets for some time. The page definitely needs expanding but subject is notable. Partyclams (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page because there was so much coverage of the subject. He's clearly notable. And I am in no way a fan of this individual, so I did it solely on the grounds of notability. PickleG13 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it clearly meets item #1 of WP:BAND. Vice wrote an article over 4,000 words long about the subject, clearly not trivial in nature. I think it would be pertinent to place {{US-music-bio-stub}} to see if anyone has interest in expanding it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 22:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this deletion request appears to be politically motivated and should be quickly closed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.114.58 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to think that there is any political motivation for the deletion request, it is based on notability and not politics. To insinuate that there is a political motivation without evidence is not okay. Don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this rapper received significant coverage from various other songs, which could be added to this article if they are sourced. The stub template speaks for itself; I think there are many ways to improve it. - HarukaAmaranth (talk | contribs) 05:30, 5 June 2023 (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.