Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devilman (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. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Devilman (rapper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't really see any claim of notability here, and only the Guardian ref seems to meet our criteria, promotional tone Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The references seem adequate to me. I don't see a promotional tone to the article itself. If the sources seem somewhat promotional at times, it may be because of the genre's inherent culture of 'beefs' and 'clashes' and other self-aggrandizing esthetics. Willondon (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best for now actually as my searches only found a few other links but nothing outstandingly convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Fence sit: The relevant guidelines for notability are here. The article provides eight sources, only one of which is The Guardian. Seems the argument for notability boils down to how reliable and notable the other sources are. I’m not familiar with any of them, but it seems to me that they’re independent sources attempting to provide credible, unbiased coverage of various musicians and genres. Willondon (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Willondon (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? SwisterTwister   talk  04:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I voted because the relistings seemed to beg for more discussion and consensus. I voted to keep because I believe the topic has been covered by a number of reliable independent sources. Now that Chrisw80 has joined you and the original proponent in recommending deletion, I’d say a consensus has been reached. Willondon (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just know that when Devilman becomes the next Drake, I shall haunt all of your talk pages to tell of your short-sighted foolishness. Willondon (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: If this is notable (which I do not believe), then it's by a thread. The vast majority of sources found are not comprehensive coverage, and almost all the sources have to do with the feuding between various musical artists and happen to include some passing mentions of Devilman. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 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.