Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaker Knockerz (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. With an overwhelming "keep" consensus at the last AFD less than a month ago, and a near-identical AFD rationale, this nomination is out of order. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 18:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker Knockerz

AfDs for this article:

[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)

As a result of the second nomination and its wrongful keep debates, with the article being deleted without final decision. Therefore, the AfD is being reconsidered for the third time. Recreation of a prohibited article on an unknown or less known person that fails at WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NBASIC and WP:REFERENCE. This page should be prohibited from ever being recreated on Wikipedia ever again like other lesser known people or facts. I don't care. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #2, the contributor opened this AfD with the exact same incoherent deletion rationale a mere 2 weeks after his previous AfD where the community unanimously chose to keep this article. Speaker Knockerz easily passes WP:GNG and I'm starting to think this contributor is acting disruptively to delete the article of a rapper he doesn't like. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Célestin Denis: For your information, I like the artist. It's the basic matter that undernoticed people should not have to be articled here. I would recommend you to make a blog about him or via Fandom instead. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has notability standards and based on those standards he has the right to an article. If you are unsatisfied, you should debate about making these standards stricter. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", Speaker Knockerz has received independent coverage in Pitchfork, MTV, Complex, The Fader and other sources which the community has considered notable (WP:ALBUMSOURCES) therefore making him presumably notable. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Célestin Denis: I put a notice on my talk page about disruptive edits that I am notified of making right here. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Blatantly biased nomination argument, two weeks after the previous AfD where notability was established. This is a waste of time. Silver seren^C 22:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have decided to apologize for such a disruptive AfD prediction without reviewing or realizing. If I deserved to be put down for it, then I deserve it. I respect whatever response you throw at me out of this. I cannot lie and say "it was an accident", but I will admit that it was an unthinkable decision. I hope you all understand whether you accept my apology or I'd be blocked from editing on Wikipedia because of this ever again. I'm very sorry. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 01:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Just because the article was previously deleted due to an AfD doesn't mean that it could be recreated with better sourcing. Plus, it's only been a mere two weeks before another nomination by the same person, calling the votes to keep the article a "wrongful keep debate," as well as not even saying why it fails to have notability except for the fact that it was previously deleted (which isn't a good rationale). reppop^talk 06:35, 12 February 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.