Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miik3Murd


 * 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 speedy delete. G4, G5. See also Sockpuppet investigations/V2burger. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Miik3Murd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

complete hoax in that this person might be alive but isn't at all notable to the extent that this article claims. Also it's a copyright violation from here and complete vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of notability is not the same as a "hoax", which would be an intentional false statement. I ask that the term hoax be either supported more clearly, or struck, DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read any of the article or the sources you'd know there are 0 WP:CCS. Or do you think that this is a legitimate record label? The rest is literally made up, which fails the A7 test of having a credible claim and it was promotional and a copyvio. And yes, it's clearly designed to be deceptive as a hoax. But now we are here and will suffer through a worthless 7 day discussion about a guy who has literally no sources about him or his company anywhere on the internet, other than you know, porn. Praxidicae (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also please, do tell what claim there ever was. Is it being signed to "The Sets Records" which doesn't exist? Or the 5 stars at discogs from rating themselves? Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd really love to know what credible claims of significance saw when they turned down the speedy deletion. I'll note that I'm pleased they didn't totally fuck up handling the speedy deletion nomination and did at least deal with the blatant copyright issues. Nick (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Claims of significance. The mtter is really no longer relevant sicne we are now dealing with notability, a much higher standard. Note that CCS need not be supported by any sources, nor externally verified. Since you ask, I considerd the following to be CCS:
 * Note that, as I have previously stated on WT:CSD my view is that if at least 10% of artiucles with property X are eventually kept at AfD, than a statement, even if totally unsourecd, that the subjet has property X (say being a CEO) is a claim of significance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is laughable. None of those are claims. set.fm isn't even a record label, a 5 star rating on Discogs doesn't exist. I guess you're not aware that simply being signed to a label isn't a claim of significance unless the label itself is known (or you know, in existence...) You do realize that in order for something to be credible it needs to exist, right? Miik Africa, as I noted above, literally doesn't. Praxidicae (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. How do you believe those claims are both credible and are significant ? I find myself in agreement with Praxidicae here, if a source doesn't exist, meaning the claims concerning that source have been fabricated, how exactly can those claims be credible or have any significance ? Nick (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that, as I have previously stated on WT:CSD my view is that if at least 10% of artiucles with property X are eventually kept at AfD, than a statement, even if totally unsourecd, that the subjet has property X (say being a CEO) is a claim of significance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is laughable. None of those are claims. set.fm isn't even a record label, a 5 star rating on Discogs doesn't exist. I guess you're not aware that simply being signed to a label isn't a claim of significance unless the label itself is known (or you know, in existence...) You do realize that in order for something to be credible it needs to exist, right? Miik Africa, as I noted above, literally doesn't. Praxidicae (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. How do you believe those claims are both credible and are significant ? I find myself in agreement with Praxidicae here, if a source doesn't exist, meaning the claims concerning that source have been fabricated, how exactly can those claims be credible or have any significance ? Nick (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. How do you believe those claims are both credible and are significant ? I find myself in agreement with Praxidicae here, if a source doesn't exist, meaning the claims concerning that source have been fabricated, how exactly can those claims be credible or have any significance ? Nick (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no explanation needed. anyone that can't see why isn't going to understand anyhow. 2601:983:827F:6B20:B866:9D94:22D7:FD03 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And if anyone wants to run a sock check for WalkerSoft, CreepLord, and Shedrack321, I am sure you will snare a few more names to add to the v2burger list. Even the Musicbrainz link at the bottom of the article lists all of the various artist names this guy has used, most of which have been deleted from Wikipedia. There is no reason whatsoever that the this discussion has been open for so long. Someone really dropped the ball. 2601:983:827F:6B20:F194:3503:CE0D:3C18 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — By far one of the worst articles I have ever seen no disrespect to anyone. It fails to satisfy any known notability criteria. Furthermore, yes! If Praxidicae called this article a hoax she wouldn’t be too far from the truth. Celestina007 01:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — Note that most of the above discussion is about the state of the article as it existed a few days ago. I looked at old versions and they were indeed full of statements that were definitely exaggerations about the singer's influence, and his so-called company is almost certainly a hoax. I agree that this article's saga has revealed gaps in the CSD process, but that's a different discussion. Praxidicae has since removed most of the junk, and there is hardly anything left because the kid has no reliable coverage beyond reprints of his manager's press releases in friendly non-critical publications. Good luck to the kid, but the promotional blitz to get him off the ground does not belong in Wikipedia. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sea of tags on the article says it all. The "sourcing" aren't worth crap: Twitter, official site, Mp3 download site, streaming service link and an article on Medium which is not a reliable source. Google results are the usual junk like databases, streaming service entries, social media pages, press releases, lyrics sites and WP mirrors. The guy exists, but this article is certainly WP:TOOSOON. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per nom. if not a hoax, but does not support notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Speedy should not have been declined. Non-notable hoax. --  Dane  talk  17:24, 13 August 2020 (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.