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.WP:NFT. —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:21Z
Notability not mentioned. Quick Google search do not show up anything relevant. Plus content of the page does smell fictious. soumসৌমোyasch18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Probably qualifies as an attack article (esp. the Trivia section) and I'd tag it for such if I was certain that the entire thing was untrue. ◄Zahakiel►20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The information provided on this page is about a little known musician whose sphere of influence probably does not extend outside of Essex, UK, although he does have some American contacts. The information is not fiction, and any information which is, or is simply offensive will be promtly removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paronomasia (talk • contribs).
Keep This page should not be deleted on the basis that Young Halz has an extremely popular underground following. Young Halz has successfully collaborated with rap artists across the Atlantic. He has sold in excess of 65000 albums in the UK and has done several concerts, increasing his popularity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.140.188 (talk • contribs). — 81.159.140.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This page should most certainly not be deleted. As stated above Young Halz does indeed have a popular underground following, and his concerts have been very successful to my knowledge. His album Chamber Muzik is one of my personal favourites, and I would highly expect in excess of 30,000 copies of the album to have been sold. Those doubtful of his talent or even his musical presence, in Essex in particular, need only listen to his music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.228.109 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC). — 84.64.228.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - For those of you voting "keep" for this entry, please have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The fact that he is "a little known musician" whose influence does not extend beyond a limited region is what disqualifies him from the possibility of an entry in the encyclopedia until he has become popular enough to be mentioned by several third-party sources of information. Myspace pages and blogs (which appear to be all that a Google search for his name reveal) do not qualify as reliable sources. Expectations of possible sales is only guesswork, and if he's sold in excess of 65,000 albums it should be a simple matter to find a review of his music by a credible source. If one of these is posted in the entry, it might change things a bit. ◄Zahakiel►15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the three keep "votes" were all posted anonymously, the second was posted within two minutes of the first, and the third was posted less than half an hour later. Two of them have contributed to the article and the only edits they have made have been to that and to this AfD. The third's only contribution has been to this AfD. I think we can guess where their loyalties lie and not take their votes altogether seriously. -- Necrothesp16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really not sure how the time at which the comment was made or who it was by, or whether they signed it or not is relavent. If you recieved two letters in the post from the same person you would not immediately assume them to be some fraudulent vandal, so why do so here. The article is about a genuine musician who deserves as much credit as others who are unsigned. This is the reason why there is no definative count for sold CDs, they are published under his own record label which is not official or commercialised. Paronomasia 19:33, 7 March 2007
Comment. It can generally be assumed that when two IPs post virtually identical comments written in virtually identical ways about identical subjects within two minutes of each other from accounts that have only been used to edit things relating to that subject...well, you can draw a logical conclusion. -- Necrothesp00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page should be kept because Young Halz is the future, he's blowing up fast and his fan base has reached all around the UK, his massive underground following even ranges to the USA. Your arguments would suggest that an underground legend like MF Doom should not have an article on wikipedia, which is absurd. -- gs_hova 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) — gs_hova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Furthermore, the artist in question has agreed to the article, therefore it is not a hoax or an attack article. -- gs_hova 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both previous votes are from the same person, who also has recently created an account and just worked on the article. Plus, comments like the artist in question has agreed to the article suggests sounds like SPS to me. --soumসৌমোyasch20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and i dont care is this is the third time ive voted What gs_hova said is totally true, the artist has agreed to it, and no, Ohconfucius, gs_hova is not the subject because if that were the case, then wouldn't the article be titled 'gs_hova', not 'Young Halz'. Furthermore, i don't have a clue what a "GHit" is, or SPS until i clicked on it- they are probably terms invented by the sorts of people who use words such as Hax or L33T - those who have nothing better to do with their spare time but use such words. Not the sort of people who are remotely interested in music, let alone rap. This is probably why so many of you consider it "non-notable", "self published" and "a hoax", even after being told that this is not the case. I am afraid to say that it shows complete and utter ignorance, for which myself, and many others, think should be valid enough reason to stop you from ever editing this site again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paronomasia (talk • contribs).
Delete. Let's assume that it's not a hoax. Does the subject of the article pass WP:MUSIC? I have been unable to find evidence of such and none has been provided by those who have suggested to "keep". Urban Dictionary is hardly a reliable source, so those 2 references (trivial in any case) do nothing to establish notability. -- Black Falcon08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what is a reliable source? Many people consider wikipedia itself to be such - not simply a collaboration of information collected from unreliable sources across the internet, so claiming that the information on here needs to be backed up means that the whole of wikipedia is futile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paronomasia (talk • contribs).
Comment: Exactly. Because many people consider Wikipedia a reliable source (at least to gain knowledge, if not cite), we cannot (and try not to) let unverified facts or someones' inferences creep into the articles. And because it caters to an international audience, the subject of an article has to have a significant sphere of influence before it warrants an article. --soumসৌমোyasch19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Not needed.
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.
