Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nice Peter

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. v/r - T P 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Peter[edit]

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

Lack of evidence of notability. Sources are not independent, only briefly mention him, don't mention him at all, are of doubtful reliability, etc etc. (PROD contested with no reason given) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources cited. Elton Bunny (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The recent Forbes.com interview cited in the article certainly appears to be substantial coverage. Here is an article in the Chicago Tribune [1] and a feature in Lumino Magazine [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Also remove any references from pages he's listed on. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 19:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but WP:JNN is not particulatly helpful. Can you explain how the coverage of the individual as in multiple reliable sources is somehow not worth our consideration? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Epic Rap Battles of History", which redirects to this page, is certainly notable, as interviews and articles about "Nice Peter" demonstrate. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's some sourcing of note in there, for sure the article could be improved, however. — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard of Nice Peter and wanted to know more. I knew I could count on Wikipedia for information. The Huffington Post and, especially, the Forbes references were relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandfeller (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I second the above post. After hearing one of his singles appear on my pandora.com station, I also immediately thought to look him up on Wikipedia! http://www.pandora.com/#/music/artist/nice+peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.102.185 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The subject is discussed directly and in detail in multiple reliable sources. IE: Chicago Tribune,[3] Lumino Magazine,[4] Center Stage, [5] The Indie Band Survival Guide(ISBN 0312377681), Chicagoist,[6] Illinois Times,[7] Metro Times,[8] and Forbes.[9] While certainly the subject's name causes numerous false positives in searches, I find that ones about HIM are independent of the subject, address him directly and in detail, and of suitable reliability. Any perceived problems with other sources can be dealt with through regular editing and do not require deletion of a demonstrable notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 11 November 2011 (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.