Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Flowroshus


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jo Flowroshus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The one article is about a musician who has not reached the point of meeting WP:Music. He is, to quote a blurb on a production company webpage that mentioned him, "up and coming." But not there. The other is about his debut album. CSD tags were removed anonymously. As the one is sourced, that is as it should be. Neither subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:Music. There are two sources in the Jo Flowroshus article. An interview in 608. 608 is a local magazine in Madison, Wisconson. This is not sufficient to establish notability, as is true of the other ref, a blog. There is nothing at Allmusic or Billboard. No Google book hits. There are two paywalled news articles via Highbeam that talk about the subject and others in a concert. The webhits are blurbs, proportionals promotionals and downloads and Facebook and MySpace. Dloh cierekim  08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete References cited are insufficient to confer notability, and Google hunting isn't helping. Artist is signed to a label that might help pass notability if he releases another album, but in lieu of that this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
 * 'Keep These other guys obviously did not check on Jo's references... gregjackp, dlohcierekim, and ginseng bomb are one in the same account and on every page it says that they all like to delete pages on wikipedia...they have gone too far in this case. Some soldiers kill cuz they have to..and some use the system as an excuse to kill- and mistakes are made..which is so in this case. FYI... Jo Flowroshus is a member of Get Money Gang Entertainment which is Twista's company, and an offical member of the Speedknot Mobstaz. Jo is also affiliated with many major acts in hip hop today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.125.73 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And still does not meet WP:Music. Please do your research and refrain from personal attacks and serious false accusations.  Dloh  cierekim  16:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP is not a junkyard. Ref 1 is local coverage only. Ref 2 is a local blog only. Ref 3 & 4 is a local coverage blog, with both being a passing (trivial) mention of an appearance with Twista. Ref 5 is a promo for a mixtape release on the preceding blog. Ref 6 just shows him in a video of Twista.  Affiliation with notable acts does not make him notable, he has to meet WP:MUSICBIO on his own. The above does not meet criteria 1 (non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources). No charted single or album. No gold records. No coverage of international or national tour. Only 1 album. Not part of an ensemble. Not the most prominent rep of hip-hop, either nationally or locally. No award noms. No competition wins. No work for a notable TV show, movie, etc. Not in rotation of major national radio network - one local station only. Not the subject of any broadcast on national radio or TV. Exactly where does he meet notability standards? Show a reason to keep him, where he meets the standards, and I'll be happy to change my vote. (GregJackP (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC))


 * "Local" sources need not be dismissed out-of-hand, but I still don't find there is enough coverage here to meet the general notability guideline, and when I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, all I could find were a couple of concert listings. Delete unless some additional significant coverage turns up by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 16 March 2010 (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.