Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovan Smith

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. This article has been proposed for deletion several times in the past month; the new nomination appears to be trolling and in any event not a reasonable or good faith nomination. Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jovan Smith

Jovan Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about a verifiable but very WP:LOCAL article and is largely complete WP:BOLLOCKS with wide and far reaching libel issues, NPOV issues, original research. The subject is not notable. He is only mentioned in passing in most of the sources which are all free trash newspapers from the Bay Area. No mention in Los Angeles or New York trash newspapers, no mention in legitimate San Francisco Bay Area newspapers. Articles which are about him are trivial mentions such as concert and entertainment and arts sections that report on concerts. Also a non notable rap magazine. And apparently the artist's album notes too, album notes are not appropriate secondary sources, they are not available online either and are not verified. This article while well formatted does not meet our standards and should be deleted. NewAtThis (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above.NewAtThis (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep From the sources, he looks notable to me. Somewhat local, but that's local to southern California, which is a wide and densely populated area. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Northern California actually.NewAtThis (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad; I don't know California well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case may I respectfully ask your grounds for thinking the sources to be notable?  RGTraynor  16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian may be free, and I hardly agree with its politics, but it's a reliable source of quite some pedigree. WP:LOCAL doesn't apply because that's for places. Still, I don't think this rapper meets notability without some coverage out of the area. Delete. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: There are a number of sources here giving trivial mentions on the website of a local alternative weekly, but here's the rub: what elements of WP:MUSIC might any Keep proponents suggest this fellow fulfills?  RGTraynor  16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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.