Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The mith


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The mith

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Very highly advertorialized and inadequately referenced WP:BLP of a musician. While there are things stated here that would be valid notability claims if they were properly sourced, the writing tone is so highly advertorialized that it's hard to sort out what's really true and what's promotional bumf, and the sourcing is a contextless and unfootnoted mix list of links, not all of which are actually reliable or WP:GNG-building. As I'm not an expert in locating Ugandan media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find sufficient referencing to neutralize this -- but Wikipedia is not a free PR platform where musicians are entitled to keep articles written and referenced like this. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uganda. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep A bit of flowery language (that I've just cleaned up) does not justify deletion. Someone else can easily fix the lack of inline citations given the shortness of the article. small jars 16:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources, both New Vision and The Observer seem reliable. small jars 16:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the article survives, the title should be fixed (moved) so "Mith" is capitalized correctly. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 01:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Admittedly, this one is a close call because the rapper's albums have been reviewed by New Vision and Observer, which might be reliable sources in their general operations. However, the reviews are very short and not particularly journalistic (e.g. "one thing this brother is proud of is that he has never lost focus"). I don't think that a few very brief reviews qualify as the significant coverage that is necessary here, and I can find nothing else beyond the usual streaming and social media services. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 01:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: BLP, only refs are promo which does not support the content in the article or N. I removed the unreferenced BLP material and promo links. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  18:22, 25 March 2023 (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.