Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TooSmooth

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. No reliable coverage, and very, very spammy article. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TooSmooth[edit]

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

There are some decent claims to notability, but I don't think they quite add up. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "They dont quite add up"? What links or facts do you find to be false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean they are suspicious. I mean that the claims of notability literally don't add up to a notable subject. I'm not disputing the accuracy here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So an artist that owns his own label and just so happen to be listed with the RIAA, Also being an MTV/VEVO artist and being able to Vote in the Grammys plus being on one of the biggest Spotify playlist isnt notable? Ive seen more mixtape and Youtube artist on here with less of a background then TooSmooth has and yet its taking a very long time for him to be apart of Wiki. Why is that? Willpc17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 October 2014 (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) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ The artist has strong credits and there backed up with links, Plus his business has also been credited. The RIAA Its self is a strong enough credit for any Record Label besides the work the label has done for its artist. A National Spotify Playlist Plus VEVO and MTV Features Are Just as Important Today In The Music Industry As Terrestrial Radio Airplay. Its a New Media Age, And This Article speaks on an artist Living in the Digital World! Speedy Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Artist Can Be Found On The Internet And His Links Back Up The Statements Listed In The Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllaBrown64 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — EllaBrown64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Of all the references listed in the article, the only reliable, third party source that I see is this article from the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights), a local paper. In a search for sources, I could come up with little more than sites fueled by user-generated content. I am just not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that is required by WP:GNG. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ If an artist thats only released Mix tapes and Youtube videos can have a Wiki page, TooSmooth should be able to for the fact his apart of the RIAA a VEVO artist and has had videos on MTV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpc17 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Willpc17: Please stop !voting. You've already !voted twice, which is one time two many. !Voting three times won't affect the outcome though. if you want to add to your original !vote, then please do so, do not !vote again. !Voting more than once misleads users. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Willpc17: The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping an article. When it comes down to it, what matters is whether or not the subject has significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !votes above; only one is allowed. However, you can comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best chance seems to be WP:GNG. Ignoring all the sites selling music, the article doesn't offer much: a local paper's article[1], and a biography that's on a site that also sells music and is still in beta (which is hardly independent or reliable). For a moment, I thought I had found an article on MTV[2], but it turns out to be an area of the web site that is designed to be built and maintained by the artists themselves. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2014 (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.