Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk Junya


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hawk Junya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Reading all 15 references, not one says more than two words about this artist (generally first and last name). Certainly no repeated substantial editorial discussion. The single reference with a bio takes the article text from WP! Otherwise each ref is a link to his own video, performance dates or track listings. Sorry, WP:TOOSOON -MJH (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. A lot of the authours contributions have the same problem. References thrown in to give an appearence of notability. References that are unrelated, very other things related but not about him, passing mentions. They add up to deceptive article creation that is approaching being a hoax. Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references used in this article amount to nothing more than self-submissions, or self-submissions that have been automatically duplicated to generate website content. This is the lowest and weakest type of reference. Even if there was editorial from niche or self-published blogs within his genre it would still not meet notability guidelines. And yet, for this artist, not even this level of recognition has been achieved. Wikipedia is for those individuals who have ascended to the higher rungs on the ladder of notability. This artist has not even reached the first. 64Winters (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete completely non-notable, apparently unsigned ("independent artist" as the article amusingly puts it). Though not a hoax in the sense of something totally made up, it's definitely aggrandisement that crosses the border into deception--for example, the reference given for "known for his lyrical ability" is a link to a mixtape site that says nothing at all of the kind. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed, it seems he has not established notability at this time. None of the references are significant or actually talk about him. Multiple Google News searches including his albums offered nothing useful. SwisterTwister   talk  04:28, 11 January 2013 (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.