Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan smart

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan smart[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable singer. No coverage at all beyond social networks etc. Fails WP:NOTABLE among others. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think one shall not shrug off social networks as they do posess some significance nowadays. However, I would require references, still. So unless reliable references are provided I shall stick with"delete". CeesBakker (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that social networks and even blogs can have provide a bit of support proving the subject is known. However, I scanned the internet and came up with nothing but social networks and video sites. If this singer gets significant critical reviews, news coverage, etc., in the future I would support having an article on him. Also, I think any article about a personality needs considerably more biographical info than appears here.Bill Pollard (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits; Bill has it, I think. If there were notability here, we'd be seeing more coverage about the artist, and that's missing. Usual Caveats apply, of course; it's early in this young man's career, and it's possible (even likely) that he will get a big break and become fully notable. In that case, an article would certainly be warranted. But he's not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that, until a few minutes ago, the AFD tag at the article was a redlink pointing to an empty debate (and not to this one). Consensus seems clear, but if the reviewing admin is more comfortable relisting due to the error, I don't disagree. Hell, I almost relisted myself. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:30, 15 October 2012 (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.