Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiirya Beats

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. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiirya Beats[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)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:ADMASQ of an article on a non notable musician and businessperson that fails to meet neither WP:MUSICBIO, WP: GNG nor WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Author has added more sources since nomination, which require further analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate that this has been re-listed after references were added. It is not the job of the editor re-listing to check the references, and it was correct to re-list because the changes has been made. I have taken the opportunity to check them. My opinion is that they add nothing to the article, nor to the notability of the subject. It makes it more clear that this is WP:ADMASQ and confirms that the nomination was correct and reasonable Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:40, 25 November 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.