Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nav (Rapper)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nav (Rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Has no EP or full length projects. reddogsix (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although I found these sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, they might not be enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO in this case. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Only source listed is a music download website listed in the info box. Google and NYT searches for both Nav (Rapper) and Navraj Goraya provides nothing to establish notability, mostly blogs, press releases and music download sites. Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. CBS527^Talk 02:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. To quote the Complex piece Adam found, "Nothing about Nav has really been confirmed yet, but as he gains prominence, it seems destined that more information will come out about him." (That was in July; Inverse said something similar as recently as the end of December.) We really need the confirmation (the usual, significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources) in order to have an encyclopedia entry. Once we do, then great; for now, TOOSOON. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2017 (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.