Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeadKrack


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

HeadKrack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing a lot of notability, but some very iffy sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. He is one of quite a few co-hosts of a marginally notable TV show. Also, apparently he went to school. That's not notable. Also, exactly zero independent references. Yes, I counted them. Twice. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are articles about him on google  . They weren't hard to find. Szzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those noted above (LA Sentinel and Dallas Observer). FloridaArmy (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing in the article even tries to make a claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) for anything, and none of the sourcing shown so far is cutting it. The LA Sentinel source shown above is not independent third party coverage about him, but merely leads to a YouTube clip of him speaking about himself in a Q&A interview, so it doesn't support notability at all — people get over GNG by being the subject of coverage written by other people, not by talking about themselves or other things in Q&A interviews — and RapZilla is a blog, not a reliable source. So the only reference that isn't a complete non-starter right off the bat is the Dallas Observer — but that's a local alt-weekly, so while it would be acceptable as one source within a mix of more solid sourcing than anybody has actually been able to show, it does not bring the GNG all by itself as an article's only valid source. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better — but he needs more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As a lead in two nationally syndicated shows he meets notability guidelines and he is noted extensively in LOTS of sources in addition to those noted above. He's a feature of Atlanta influencers and is very popular. Not even a borderline case. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead? Are you sure about that? Dish Nation lists him as one of 7 co-hosts and the show seems to be only just about notable itself. Then here is the Rickey Smiley Morning Show which doesn't even have an article. It redirects to its actual host, who is Rickey Smiley not HeadKrack. If you can show significant coverage by reliable sources to prove notability then that could swing the whole thing towards a "keep" but that Dallas Observer reference you added, while a small step in the right direction, is nothing like significant coverage on its own as it is just one paragraph in an article that is mostly about other people. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a whole lot more than a paragraph. And Wikipedia is missing articles on lots of subjects regarding African Americans. His lead roles on very notable and long running shows as well as the media cpverage he's received make him notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's more than a paragraph, yes. But it's still the only reliable source that has been shown at all, so it doesn't make him pass WP:GNG all by itself. We require a lot more than just one acceptable source before we deem a person notable, if he doesn't have any "inherent" notability claim (like being the newly elected president of a country) strong enough to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines; frankly, I think I would have axed this on csd-a7 grounds if it hadn't been for the afd message. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:15, 16 April 2018 (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.