Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vic O


 * 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. joe deckertalk 02:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Vic O

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough (see Talk:Vic O for details) Quasar G. (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Query: on the talk page you said I do not believe that the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Vic O only fulfils the first criterion on criteria for musicians and ensembles but WP:MUSICBIO says that only one of the criteria has to be met for the subject to be presumed notable. Do you think on reflection that Vic O doesn't fulfil the crtierion, or should the page be deleted on some other grounds? Mortee (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources have questionable reliability, and a lot of the coverage is trivial because most of them only serve to mention a possible 'diss track' or a tweet that Vic O has made. The others are articles written solely because of the popularity of his song "After Party", which was shortlived. Also bear in mind that WP:MUSICBIO says Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Vic O trends on social media and in tabloid magazines for a short amount of time every time he threatens to have 'beef' with another rapper, which is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS (criterion 2). Quasar G. (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point about 'presumed' versus 'may be'. I should have read that part more thoroughly rather than assuming based on some other guidelines. I don't have a view either way on Vic O right now, I just wanted to understand. Thanks for explaining. Mortee (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete The sources seem questionable. Outside of that, also seems very self-promotional and nominal regarding notability. Cleanup might be possible, but not sure. As it is right now, it doesn't meet the grade. South Nashua (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is not notable, article is clearly promotional page. Sources are poor quality and do not establish notability. Denarivs (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 20 February 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.