Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emiway Bantai (Indian rapper)

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. Keep arguments are not adding up to a gng pass and sngs cannot overcome poor sourcing in a blp. No objection ifvsomeone wants to put a redirect in Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emiway Bantai (Indian rapper)[edit]

[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)

Non-notable rapper who has already been the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emiway Bantai. I haven’t seen the deleted article and so am not tagging this for G4 (but maybe an admin can compare them). However, this article does not indicate that the subject has become notable in the past two years. This article was submitted to AFC for review twice, and was declined twice, the first time for lack of notability and for reading like an advertisement. The second time I declined it as not meeting any of the musical notability criteria, and because of the previous deletion discussion. It was then moved from draft space to article space anyway. It still doesn’t satisfy musical notability. Naïve Google search shows that the subject exists and makes extensive use of social media. We guessed that. Article has been reference-bombed with a mixture of possibly reliable sources and unreliable sources. A well-sourced BLP of a performer who does not meet notability criteria is still a BLP of a non-notable performer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep yes, it reads like music PR, but rapper appears to have won MTV Europe Music Award for Best Indian Act in 2019, so not a total unknown, Indian media coverage seems to support regional notability? Acousmana (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I waded through the mire of references and could find nothing to convince me that the article subject was notable. I tagged it with a G4 speedy delete but later withdrew that based on a suggestion that the topic was salted. Clearly not. Moving a draft into mainspace without review is also a red-flag in my book which encouraged me to critical examine all the sources. The requirements of WP:SINGER are a long way from being met. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete still not notable and this is nothing more than PR spam. CUPIDICAE💕 13:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like the rapper has been covered in reliable sources multiple times. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough reliable sources that demonstrates his notability. All, I can see is mostly PR sources. Grailcombs (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he was won a notable award as per WP:Anybio and has had an album released by Virgin EMI which is a major label so he should be included but the article needs a less promotional rewrite, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The tone of article sounds a little on the hollow PR side but a Many credentials are notable like the MTV Europe award and 10 million subscribers on youtube.com.--101.0.41.115 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and salt it too (cf. Emiway Bantai). Things like awards and major label deals are heuristics: They are indications that significant coverage might well exist, but actual notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. While the article has been carpet-bombed with references, it fails to establish that Bantai meets this standard, and no new sources have been brought up in this discussion. Blablubbs|talk 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comment by Acousmana. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 16:35, 20 March 2021 (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.