Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Pappy (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus after two relists. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pappy

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

The contents fail to show effort of popularity or circuit of fame whatsoever. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I said at the first AfD, while tragic, all the press is related to his shooting, which would be a case of WP:BIO1E. Closed as no consensus, the single "keep" !vote was based on a single article, which ignored the fact that the article was focused on the rapper's shooting. Again, going to BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty in Google news search shown above (it isn't necessary to reproduce them) the Vice article here is significant coverage about his whole life not just his shooting and states that he was famous before he was killed with over a million and half downloads on soundcloud so WP:BIO1E does not apply Atlantic306 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the significant coverage of periods of his life other than the fatal shooting. here is another one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 68.189.200.18 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as I found this to be more unnoticeable as an artist, with no popularity at all. BJPlaya10 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above rationale is not a qualifier for speedy deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not for profiles/ biographies. nothing worthy for encyclopedia Light2021 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a meaningful rationale for deletion - Wikipedia is for biographies (among other kinds of articles), and this article should be evaluated according to the criteria on WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:15, 23 July 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.