Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vita (rapper) (3rd nomination)

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. Sandstein 08:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vita (rapper)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, and WP:NOTINHERITED. No third-party sources. No discography, only a couple obligatory guest appearances on labelmates' records and one bit part in a movie. Article was recreated despite a consensus deletion in 2010 due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to have the same problems for which it was deleted prior. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notv enough coverage in sources to show her as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2010 deletion has no bearing as there is now four more sources published after that discussion. That directly addresses problems from that discussion. Three of the new sources look good. Where are they now articles still count as coverage. Combine them with the substantial MTV article and you have enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does pass WP:GNG as per the above discussion of the references but it is surprising she does due to her limited output but still passes. Atlantic306 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Individual is not notable, regardless of association with notables. Seconcepts (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable and ABC News, VH1 News, Complex and HipHop Dx is reliable sources and she was listed as Billboard Top 31 Female Rappers Who Changed Hip Hop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B058:14EA:99AB:E03B:7F29:4A67 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — 2600:1005:B058:14EA:99AB:E03B:7F29:4A67 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hey Brendar 1214 (or Kev1214, or this IP), are you block evading again? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source. Billboard article about her recording "Justify My Love" for The Fast and the Furious (soundtrack). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rapper seems to be notable. Harut111 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – based on the sources, and doing a Google Search and checking them, it seems that notability has been established firmly per WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 ✉ 14:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It should have been nominated under CSD G4. Run of the mill singer and supposed actress, who had some early success but not sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Lets look at the film entry. She has been in a single film so fails WP:NACTOR. It is not a delete rationale, but she is not actor either. Looking at each of the supposed reference in run. This BLP article after all, and must be supported by reference that intellectually independent, and provide meaningful secondary coverage. Looking at each in turn:

First ref points to Eve in a listing that states, 10 female rapper who should make a come It is not a BLP refs, doesn't satisfy WP:ANYBIO and listings of these types are not considered WP:RS, as it is a listing. They are mentions by names only.
No 2 is press release from 2001 for a supposed album which was never released. It establishes anti-notabilty.
Couldn't locate this one, and anyway, it is a supposed for hall, rashaun not the lady, so it is also not WP:RS as it is a listing.
This is a fail. Doesn't satisfy WP:RS as it is mention by name only, and fails WP:ANYBIO. Another what happened to them now entry.
Date on this is 2012, supposedely working on new material. So it established non notability, but not WP:RS as it is a listing, and mention by name only.
Last ref is a kind of obituary, espousing the fact that Murder inc, never went as far as it could, dated March 2014.

All the refs are very very poor and doesn't establish notability. This is a BLP article, that is supposed to have wide coverage. It is not there. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's totally disregard this !vote. G4? At time of nomination 80% of the sources used had been published after the last deletion so cleary G4 would have been a very bad move. Run of the mill singer? Nope, more than that. Run of the mill singers do not feture on multiple very well charting singles or on a top ten, platinum (in two countries) soundtrack, including a track where she is the lead. Failing NACTOR? Strawman. Noone has claimed otherwise. The sources?

1. Poorly formatted ref, should point to the section on Vita instead of the one on Eve. The overall article is about 10 artists, not just Eve. Is clearly more than a listing. Cleary does more than just mention names. Total misrepresentation of the source.

2. No evidence to support claim of it being a press release. Doesn't matter that the album was not released, it is still coverage.

3. Scope says they never located the article yet claims it is just a listing. Nope, it's an article. Makes the strange claim that it's "a supposed for hall, rashaun not the lady" whatever that means. Any competent look a the ref would see that the author of the article is Rashaun Hall.

4. Once again falsley claiming it's just a mention by name only. Scope do you realise that many people actually have the ability to read and can see for themselves what is actually in the source.

5. Scope claims that working on new material established non notability? What a strange claim. Once again falsley claiming it's just a mention by name only when clearly it's more than that.

6. Scope makes the strange claim that this is an obit. As this one is primarily quotes from her instead of independent coverage this is one that I would agree is not much use for GNG. (an aside, this is based on Billboard's Top 31 Female Rappers Who Changed Hip Hop).

False claims, strawman, misrepresentation. Should be ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed delete entry to Delete and Salt Clearly there is a plan to recreate it, once it is deleted. duffbeerforme, if that a real article, I would fight to keep it. But it's not. Its a terrible article, and any decent copyedit would remove 4 out of those 6 refs, leaving as a delete candidate. scope_creep (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme, Please find more coverage that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV. I see you have created more article that I have. It could be because it was early on the internet, the stuff may not be online. scope_creep (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now you’ve made up a plan that no one seems to have. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passed WP:GNG and she seems to be notable due to searches on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bar 123 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment duffbeerforme No. I'm trying to explain, at the turn of the century, the internet wasn't developed, and it is possible that a lot of the stuff about her, would perhaps not be offline. Hence all these listing article. These listing articles show up about a subject when there is not a lot of info about a subject online, so the bundle together with stuff to make some content. It is a classic that there is no info about the subject. That why we have listing articles, they are dross of the content industry. If there was plenty of content about here, a big page would have been written about her. scope_creep (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2018 (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.