Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordsmith (musician)


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wordsmith (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet WP:NM. Sources are opinion pieces, blog posts. Ramaswar57 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep : Enough sources to prove notability found. Zekejones11 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) at last
 * — Zekejones11 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking through !vote by banned sock. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, "enough" sources isn't the issue, it's whether those sources are of sufficient quality. There are a lot of links to blogs which don't meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria: the ESPN link is merely a redirect as to where to buy Wordsmith's track online. I'm not sure about the 1st Amendment and Review Fix sites, at the moment they look as though they might pass RS. Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Created by a banned promotional sockpuppeteer, !voted on above by a suspected confirmed sock SPA account, several references have been titles misleadingly so as to convey the impression that Wordsmith is featured in the headline when he is not. Article is mostly referenced with blogs that are not reliable sources. I count one bona fide RS, this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed any blog type sources and only have reputable newspaper sources though they are the online versions of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekejones11 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've combined the sources that are repeated throughout so we can see how many separate sources have been used: the question now is how many apart from the Baltimore Sun are RS... The DC Spotlight, The Baltimore Times and The City Paper all look like free local papers to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2016 (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.