Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Peculiar

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Peculiar

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO, no significant/reliable media coverage on the artist. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no coverage in reliable sources for what seems a pretty obscure musician. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what you mean with "obscure musician", but personal ideas aside the references and sources mentioned in the page are pretty reliable. --Fabpec (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is the band's own website, i.e. not independent of the subject, the others are not, as far as I am aware, recognised reliable sources. The Pure M website states "Pure M is a voluntary run website by a collection of writers and each contributor is building an online portfolio for their future media careers.", which sounds like one of the hundreds of amateur/fan-written webzine sites that exist on the internet, and likely falls short of WP:RS. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not indicative of significant coverage. Seems like a promotional page created by an SPA. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PROMO page and part of a walled garden created by Special:Contributions/Fabpec. The "garden" also includes:

This may be just work by a devoted fan, but four articles seems excessive. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2016 (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.