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. Shimeru (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sha Stimuli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Prod reason was As far as I can tell the only notability is inherited notability from his brother, something not acceptable as a criterion for inclusion. I do not believe that this artist passes our notability test yet. Should he become notable in the future then the article should return, properly referenced

I have checked the references and links given. One goes to a site that is said to issue malware. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage exists, as indicated on the article's talk page.--Michig (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of those sites that Michig mentioned was britishhiphop interview which said that Sha Stimuli won "Best Male Rapper Of The Year" award at the 2008 UMA's, and "Best Lyricist" award at the 2007 UMA's. Does anyone know what the "UMA's" are? Are those notable awards? The evident lack of coverage makes me suspect that they are not, but does anybody know? --Bejnar (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and formatted the links. Silver seren^C 09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to [1], the UMA in question is underground music awards. The awards show seems to have been on MTV in 2008 [2], but not sure how much that counts as it doesn't look like they covered the 2009 show. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after due consideration and based upon the lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources and the UMA's should count as a necessary nomination/award. Silver seren^C 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When one reads the "external links" attached to the article, it is clear that the reliability of the "sources" falls well short of notability standards: blogs, uncritical interviews, etc. In the case of a BLP, the need for reliable sources, as opposed to anything that can be found on the interweb, is all the more acute. In my view, throwing such unreliable external links tacked onto the bottom of a BLP to try to save it from deletion, without any attempt to use the links to verify material in the article, is unhelpful. This must be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has XXL (who reviewed his album), a major print magazine available all around the world, been considered an unreliable source?--Michig (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly sufficient to form the basis for a proper article about the artist. Assuming it is reliable (I'll take your word) it isn't significant coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's both reliable and significant coverage. HipHopDX is also a perfectly good source.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's where I definitely have to disagree. Interviews with an article's subject are effectively self-published material, and reliable sources generally don't provide links to the subject's blog and tweets and contain repetitive exclamation marks. [3] --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX is a major source of hip hop news and music coverage, one with which Sha Stimuli is unaffiliated. Calling their articles on him "self-published" is ridiculous. With regards to the links to blogs/Twitters, online music journalists would be remiss if they didn't include links to Myspace etc. since links are what make the online world go 'round. - DevOhm ^Talk 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His album was recently kept at AFD. If there's enough coverage of the album then there's anough coverage of the artist.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much discussion of the album, and the basis for its notability was not tied to the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much discussion, but it was kept because it has received multiple significant coverage in reliable sources and is, per WP:GNG, therefore notable. Coverage of an artist's recordings is also coverage of the artist.--Michig (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews are cited, one to XXL Mag and the other to HipHop DX. There was no claim of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two reviews are significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage on HipHopDX is legit, especially considering its status as a major site for hip hop news and music. Collaboration with known artists and producers like Just Blaze, Freeway, and T-Pain further supports notability. Finally, coverage in at least two big-time print publications (XXL and Source) should really end this discussion. - DevOhm ^Talk 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'd agree with Michig's assessment here. Even though there is not a huge amount of coverage, enough third-party sources have noticed this musician that, per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1 we ought to have an article about him. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 8 April 2010 (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.