Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chucky Chuck


 * 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.  Singu larity  23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Chucky Chuck

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has no real claims of notability at all. It merely describes him as a rapper and a clothes designer without expressing what accomplishments he has made that would be considered notable. No 3rd-party references are given for this article, and I've made a search for reliable sources that mentioned him and have found none. A search for news stories about him has come up dry. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:B, WP:V, and WP:N. --  At am a chat 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   — At am a chat 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - it seems to have some ok references now, but it definately needs a format cleanup XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are 2 references from Subnoize, one reference from MySpace, one reference from DGAF, all of which are primary sources and violations of WP:RS. The only 3rd party source that is claimed, and it is a dubious one, is to a supposed Sublife Magazine article about Chucky Styles but when you click the link, it doesn't take you to an article about him. Again, this article has zero credible references at all, and again there are no notability claims that satisfy WP:MUSIC. --  At am a chat 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On further investigation it looks like "Suburban Life Magazine" is the magazine for Suburban Noize Records, so it's not even a third-party source either. --  At am a chat 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The references are terrible. Even if they weren't, the subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a completely self-contained culture that isn't notable at all. All of the references are basically advertisements or a page with no information. B3nnic33 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The whole Suburban Noize Records thing is a massive walled garden with some (cough) enthusiastic fans. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also checked for sources in a database of newspaper and magazine articles, and found nothing. Delete per Atama. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and B3nnic33. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. -- Shark face  217  02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing compelling. No WP:RSs available, no news coverage. Just marginal myspace, blots, forums, lyrics, free downloads etc..etc.., , and . Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2008 (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.