Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SleazyWorld Go

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The result was Withdrawn. It is pretty clear there is a consensus to keep and that isn't likely to change, so there is no use in wasting any more editor time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SleazyWorld Go

[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)

Insufficient significant coverage by reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources found are not the strongest, but I am happy to change my vote to keep given there is a reasonable argument that notability is made, even if weakly. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Delete - does not meet GNG or WP:NMUSIC - sources are all primary and nothing appropriate found elsewhere.MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Some sources found:

This article from Billboard has around three paragraphs of non-interview content.
This article from XXL also has around three paragraphs of non-interview content.
This article from Stereogum has a bit over three paragraphs about the subject.

–North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Billboard, I don't see them passing WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: XXL is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources under the section for "Generally reliable sources". Descriptions there are rather contradictory, though. Above in the section it states, "These sources are generally considered reliable for use in music-related articles on Wikipedia", but heading the table it states that the criteria applies to album articles: "Generally reliable sources for album-related information". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereogum doesn't pass the sniff test. XXLmag, meh, I wouldn't have picked it to be. Billboard is fine. So it's on the cusp of being "multiple reliable sources". I'm not convinced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereogum isn't listed on the album project's RS list, but probably should be; The Week has used it alongside The New York Times in its album roundup columns, for example. And Tom Breihan may be considered a subject matter expert at this point. Caro7200 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep brief mention covering new music in the New York Times, giving their opinion on him [1] and in Fader [2]. I think with the Billboard and just about all the sources, he's at notability, just by a hair. He's given two interviews to HipHop Canada already [3] and [4], not useful for notability, but he's getting traction outside the USA, so that adds a bit to it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Stereogum is meh, but works for WP:GNG. However, XXL is a highly regarded hip-hop publication, with a magazine circulated on a consistent basis. Definitely counts for notability. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:30, 26 July 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.