Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notorious CHRIS


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Notorious CHRIS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMUSIC as his single only charted on iTunes. Some coverage, but mostly local in scope. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete WP:NMUSIC is clearly not met, and the article is written by several WP:SPAs. The Chronicle Live reference is decent but is more of a "local interest" piece and suggests this is WP:TOOSOON.   and  are also marginal.  There are also a lot of very bad refs; press releases and trivial mentions.  You could make a case that GNG is met, but with the promotional aspect I think it's best to delete. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep In-depth and independent coverage in reliable sources like Chroniclelive UK, Daily Mercury AU, Northern Star AU and many more are enough to pass GNG 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list' and MUSICBIO is optional in case if GNG is not met so this should not be deleted. If anyone found some bad sources that can be removed but that doesn't mean it should be deleted as per alternatives to deletion policy. Best Jesspeulen (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Jesspeulen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I didn't flag this as having failed GNG. Furthermore, you're misunderstanding the alternatives to deletion. That is for when a page may be suitably merged, redirected, disambiguated, or sent to draft. Those don't apply here. The issue with the page is not that it does not meet GNG, but that it does not meet the higher standard of WP:NMUSIC. The coverage is not significant enough to pass the music notability criteria, particularly with the article that is an interview, which consensus demonstrates that interview articles should generally not be used to gauge notability, especially of arts subjects. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep- Easily passes GNG. There are many newspaper articles about him. Pbfbpb (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC) — Pbfbpb (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic - has only just registered and this is their first edit, already with knowledge of GNG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - In my opinion it just about passes WP:GNG and passes WP:NMUSIC #1. Fit  India   08:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are just indiscriminate local puff pieces, nothing significant. Sold 150 copies is telling. Maybe just too soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2018 (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.