Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle (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. Courcelles 20:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Kyle (rapper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Artist doesn't appear notable. No third party coverage of any value. Has no charted or heavily reviewed albums. The sole charted single mentioned in the article isn't actually his.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Beautiful Loser (Kyle album)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete, those references are just iTunes references. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete I tagged the article for having an advertising tone, but all this being said brings WP:MYSPACEBAND to my mind. It's not a textbook case, obviously, but that it was written as an advertisement is telling.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, WP:MYSPACEBAND seems relevant here.  This performer is simply not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The promotional tone is offputting, but that could be fixed. I don't think it's quite in WP:MYSPACEBAND territory, but subject does seem well short of notability right now. Subject is very young--if substantial coverage develops in the future, we should have this article back. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, though, removing the promotional stuff or even rewriting it makes the article really, really short. If the article can't be of a reasonable length (i.e. beyond being a stub) without flattering its subject, then it's not time to have an article on the subject.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  16:38, 19 December 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.