Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayer (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 Userfy to User:Mliggett835. After two relistings there is not a clear consensus to keep or delete, but the author indicated a desire to try to improve the article and was encouraged by the other commenters. I will explain what is needed on their talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Kayer (rapper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Musician who fails to meet wp:creative. Current sources seem short, not overly reliable or not independent. My web search did not turn up anything else. Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Question: I'm the author of this article. Clearly it's my first time working with Wikipedia and I wanted to clarify: is the issue here that there needs to be more verbose articles referenced in the citations? I use citations from sites neither of us have control over so as to stay impartial. Is it more a matter of having longer articles, then? The artist and I are working on compiling more sources to strengthen the article with a couple interviews and other write-ups from a while back. They are older so many of them don't easily appear in Google searches. Would this be sufficient to keep the article? Mliggett835 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply sourcing to meet notability guidelines is what is needed here. You are on the right track using websites that are independent. However, what is missing is depth (length is a decent indicator) and reliability (some kind of editorial fact checking policy, or other reputation for publishing good material). Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the author will have to add further solid in-depth third-party sources overall to better satisfy the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister   talk  00:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:51, 25 January 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.