Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadeca

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 . ✗plicit 11:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quadeca

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly sourced to questionable-at-best sources like Genius, Dexerto, Banger of the Day, and Fantano, and most of the rest is bunk like refs 2-6, blogs like The Musical Hype and Fantastic Hip Hop, and a little bit of Twitter and Soundcloud for good measure. Quadeca has received some coverage which is more promising, such as what I've linked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Didn't Mean to Haunt You, but it's limited. I suspect he's on his way to notability and could easily get there with his next album cycle, but I don't see it just yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has one Billboard charting album and significant coverage such as AllMusic here and Flood magazine here, The Fader Atlantic306 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all promo sources, database, primary, nothing (including the above promos) meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 00:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306 - the relevant criteria he meets is WP:MUSICBIO. The Fader and AllMusic are reliable sources per WP:A/S and Paper and Flood magazine look reliable as well. All of which significantly cover his career and are not press releases or promotional material, so he meets #1 of the Music criteria. Also, he does indeed have an album that charted on not one, but 2 Billboard charts. So he passes #1 and #2 of the music criteria. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.