Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limang Kanta Lang


 * 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 redirect to Gloc-9. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Limang Kanta Lang

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NALBUM.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete A non notable rapper with no notable achievements and coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sliekid (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Save I guess we all agree that it is subjective to say the notability of a person. But definitely, Gloc-9 is not that "a non notable rapper". He has won multiple awards from the prestigious awards giving bodies in the Philippines including four Song of Year Awards in Awit Awards. He also has albums that were certified gold and platinum. No other rapper in the Philippines has achieved more than what Gloc-9 has achived. What I am saying here is, Gloc-9 is not "non notable" and deleting Limang Kanta Lang because of his notability is very wrong. --Jonathanmaria (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gloc-9. This may look like a "no consensus" mess so far, but the two previous votes are misguided. The first voter did not discuss the album but dismissed the rapper, and the second voter responded on whether the rapper is notable. This discussion is about the album Limang Kanta Lang, which picked up a little minor and insignificant media coverage in about the past year, as it became available online for the first time. But that is more like a sales announcement, and the album itself received very little reliable and significant coverage at the time of its original release or the more recent re-release. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Doomsdayer520. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gloc-9. Article itself fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The 3 reliable sources in the article talk about the album and are non-trivial. They definitely make the article satisfy WP:THREE. There may be sources about it upon its release, but they're hard to find. However, aside from the 3 sources, there's an article in a magazine and another source which talk about the EP, both of them were published a couple of years ago. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gloc-9 as per Doomsdayer520, MarioSoulTruthFan and CruzRamiss2002.TheSkinsAdded (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2021 (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.