Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyrice

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrice

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

Regardless of whether or not the copied text is free to use here, the creator's conflict of interest has resulted in an article that reads like a story and fails to explain how the subject satisfies any of the notability criteria at WP:NSINGER. The subject's own label is not notable. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 00:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). Already tagged G12 (copyvio). The creator of the article's only defense seems to be that the information is true and correct, and this article really has more of a promotional flavor to it than I care for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: speedily, however; entirely promotional. Meanwhile, this article looks like a fanpage. The images of major celebrities used as supposed influences for this performer are name-dropping at its worst. Of course, there is no way to source that... Fylbecatulous talk 14:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article certainly has several troubles and there's nothing at all to convince keeping and improving because there's no better material for said improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant COI, sources are all primary, no third-party sources that establish notability. Nothing salvageable here. --Drm310 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 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.