Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Star Cashville Prince

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete under criteria G12; direct copy of material copywritten at The New York Times website. Marasmusine (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All Star Cashville Prince

All Star Cashville Prince (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This has been recreated many times (the protection template is still there). It is unreferenced, fails to establish notability, and its only major contributer is a user who's name is the same as the article, which points to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the article is written in an exteremely POV style, with lines such as "He has what most rappers dream of: a devoted fan base" and other such overly fanboy material throughout. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This is extreme POV, also has no references. As mentioned, this is also a possible COI. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I could bring myself to read only a little of yesterday's edits, but several sections look cribbed from the NYTimes article. This article underwent the same binge/purge content cycle in December; going back to my last edit in the history might provide a cleaner, though bare, article to debate notability. Being signed to a large label and featured in the NY Times is nothing to sneeze at; it does seem name changes (he's now All $tar apparently) and glitches in the Cash Money machinery (which is alive and well on Wikipedia) may hamper finding evidence of notability, see this:[1]. As to the name, I gave up trying to find a template message to place on the editor's page (my assumption was that it wasn't the artist, but a violation of username policy), especially when many of these accounts last a few days or weeks. Flowanda | Talk 18:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The NYTimes ref is good, in fact its too good, and it copy-vio. Speedy Delete. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:12, 23 February 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.