Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah McLaurin

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. When disregarding socks, consensus is clear that he's notable. Star Mississippi 21:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Micah McLaurin

[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)

The article does not meet the requirement of notability. The entire page reads like a personal resume and is filled with puffery. There is no reason this article should be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandlestickLane910 (talk • contribs) 17:02, January 15, 2022 (UTC)

~~He is young so this may change, but for now the article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EveryFlowerandMe (talk • contribs) 00:50, January 15, 2022 (UTC)~~
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article at this time. @CandlestickLane910: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are unreliable (it even links their Amazon and store pages). Other than winning the "Young Artist Award" it does not seem like they have done anything notable. Wgullyn (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 03:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 03:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator and EveryFlowerandMe have been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan57Joyceefyt. Striking the comment of the latter. --Finngall ^talk 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but there are a number of references to inappropriate sources (e.g. Spotify) that need to be removed. There are some better references such as [1], [2]. That was just with a very quick search, but there could be others. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Most of the sources unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DashDyeTod1 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Finngall ^talk 06:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The Sources are reliable and the entire article passes per WP:V Chip3004 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable and there's quite a few of them. I agree with Chip that it passes WP:V. Lamona found some better sources with a simple, quick search and I'm sure that there's others. At the very least it passes the basic requirements. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:05, 23 January 2022 (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.