Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Kidd

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Kidd

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this rapper to reflect notability. Tagged for notability since May. Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:MUSICBIO criteria 7 as a prominent artist in the Winnepeg rap scene. He has some coverage in the Winnipeg Free Press, covered by Macleans magazine who identify him as "widely considered to be the city’s first bona fide rap superstar". He has been nominated for two Aboriginal People's Choice Awards. Although not a major music award, it is legitimate and the awards do receives some press coverage. So the wards do add to notability for this artist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep On the one hand, there's a good source which could hardly be more explicit about his meeting point 7 of musicbio if they quoted the guideline. Yet rather than the sort of online coverage that should imply, there is little beyond that source. There's a brief-ish mention in an accompanying online feature from the same source, and the local paper source is good (7 grafs, has useful detail, local goes towards point 7, puts me in mind of wp:bias). He won Best Solo Artist in a rather indiscriminate (98 categories) reader's poll in a Winnipeg arts mag called Uptown, prompting a small writeup there in a big list of winners.[1] And that's it, as far as I can tell. Paradoxically I'd probably feel better about this if Macleans' claims weren't so strong. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage (and hardly 'significant') to establish notability and support an article. The awards mentioned appear to take nominations via an entry form, so simply being nominated does not seem an indication of notability, and these are not major awards.--Michig (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's your take on criteria 7 in this case? (note: user is {{busy}} but i thought i'd ask). 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would need more coverage indicating that he is one of the most prominent musicians in Winnipeg, which he doesn't appear to be. I don't think it's sufficient to have a source stating that he is one of the most prominent artists within one particular genre within a city that isn't generally known for that genre. --Michig (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with his being a big fish in the small pond of Winnipeg hip hop, but yes, the quantity of coverage available barely reflects that contention. Maclean's and, reading its article, the Winnipeg Free Press seem rather strong sources, tho, backed by the dubious Uptown writeup. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Extremely~~ weak keep. It "may" meet the WP:Bio guidelines, however, I am not certain that this musician may warrant a page on here. Borderline notability plus limited sources leaves me on the edge. Tinton5 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (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.