Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder: The Gangster Rhymes


 * 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. No legit keep !votes, seems like. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Murder: The Gangster Rhymes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete and Salt: It appears that this article, along with KJIVA, his apparent "magazine" Lifoti, and "record label" United_Naxal_Records have NO reliable independent sources at all, not one. There is nothing but "free press release" articles, iTunes & Amazon store links, and user-generated music profiles. As to how these articles got approved: I don't know. But it looks like this user has been spamming Wikipedia with hoax articles. Not one reliable source exists for this musician, and in addition, none exists with a simple Google search either. See the following other three articles, as they are all up for deletion as well. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: User:Scorpion293 has put WP:AfD without proper reason, this has exploiting wikipedia policy. This book has passed WP:BKTS, Books by Wikipedians, WP:BOOKSTORE and this book has proper resources on various libraries gnd . think this user User:Scorpion293 spam wikipedia by WP:AfD please block this user User:Scorpion293 for future articles damaging.  Ligard39   (Talk2Me&#124;Contribs) 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC) — Ligard39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Striking sockpuppet contributions per Sockpuppet investigations/Nileshjambhulkar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ligard39, Nominating articles for deletion because there are no reliable sources, does not constitute a ban or block of a user on Wikipedia. Nobody here is exploiting Wikipedia. In fact, the reason for tagging this article for deletion is because no reliable sources exists, which is the golden rule. Having a book on Amazon store or Ebay does not make it worthy enough for article space. Also, the subject who wrote it has no notability either or news coverage, even though notability isn't inherited anyway. I will be tagging more investigators to look into this matter further. And by the strong reaction you initiated, it's pretty obvious that there is a conflict of interest between you and the subject. Scorpion293 (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Goodreads and amazon.com don't do it for me. And while it passes BKTS and BOOKSTORE, that just means that we can verify that it exists. What it doesn't pass is WP:BKCRIT or WP:GNG, and that is all that counts. Calling for a block for the nom is nonsense, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi User:DocWatson42, this subject only has Goodreads and Amazon store links of a book, is that enough for its own article space? Also, may I add that the subject, KJIVA, is up for deletion as there is no notability found; although I'm quite aware notability is not inherited. Would love the input of an admin. Thanks! Scorpion293 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Scorpion293: Unfortunately, despite my Admin's Barnstar, I'm not an admin and don't know where I would readily find one. I also don't generally weigh in on whether an article is worthy or not, as I'm not a good judge of that.  (I can say that the KJIVA article is pretty messy and needs some copy editing and reformatting of the layout.)—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The previous round of AfD, Articles for deletion/Kjiva, was infested with sockpuppets. I see we already have spa contributions again... —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - this book has been passed WP:BKCRIT please check point 4. please review this links of scholar library, & if this book is deleted means there is partiality with this book because same type of book still exist in wikipedia check this The Rose That Grew from Concrete (poetry collection) Jerrysoko (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The above sockpuppet continues to disrupt the AfD process. The user has been placed in a list of suspicious sockpuppet accounts tied to Kjiva and KJIVA. The user page will be reported to an admin for permanent deletion if it continues to disrupt and spam. Scorpion293 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. WP:BKCRIT point 4: Please cite specific educational or curricular materials evincing the instructional courses to which you refer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (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.