Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cho (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.  Sandstein  10:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cho (rapper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a rapper, making no real claim of notability for anything more than existing. His only listed releases have been one single and a pair of mixtapes, so nothing here gives him an WP:NMUSIC pass — and the complete lack of any reliable source referencing at all means that he doesn't satisfy WP:GNG either. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON for an article about somebody who may become more notable in the future — but nothing claimed here entitles him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of notability. Curro2 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't Reverbnation or Bandcamp. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Bharatiya  29  11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Bharatiya  29  11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as although he may be notable being signed to a label, there's nothing to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I came here looking to close this but as it stands we only have two arguments for deletion that deal with the issue of notability, another that can be given no weight whatsoever, and one that states he may be notable and appears to confuse notability with article quality. If people could start by stating whether they believe the subject is notable or not, and their reasoning and evidence why, it would be helpful. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.