Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TwoTiime

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwoTiime

[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)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Ottawa Citzen article was reliable, but there is no widespread coverage in reliable source about this person or their music. No charted songs or notable awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets WP:BASIC. There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ([1] [2]) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ([10] [11] [12] [13] [14] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S. This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. C F A 💬 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the article also reads like a promotional piece, with nothing therein showing why he’s actually notable. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion, though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. C F A 💬 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Clearfrienda that together shows significant coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A little promo in an article is not a criteria for deletion except of blatant ones. I am sure of the articles presented per se from Complex. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:06, 29 June 2024 (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.