Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperboy Prince

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paperboy Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:POLITICIAN WP:MUSICBIO Yousef Raz (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm seeing coverage well beyond what one would expect from a losing politician, including significant coverage in The New Yorker, Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post. Mlb96 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note @Mlb96 Each of those articles are about the subject's mayoral candidacy. The subject's candidacy received 0.4% of the votes. The WaPo article is about mayoral race with brief mentions of the subject. This level of coverage is expected and consistent with the other NYC mayor candidates for Democrat primary 2021.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article meets WP:GNG. “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,”. I do not know what else we are looking for here. Whatever it was that the made journos write about him is none of our concern as editors as far as he passes the criteria, there’s no need to sweat this out. And please, don’t try to convince me to change my mind, we’re not trying to get the winner or loser here. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans}
• Delete Incidental coverage of a person in connection with an election is not enough to show notability. Almost all candidates get some coverage, but this coverage is not enough to make us have to create articles on every person who runs for public office and gets coverage for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick google news search brings up multiple reliable and independent sources writing about them. He therefore meets the inclusion criteria. CT55555 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which could be said for almost any candidate for public office above a certain level. Unelected candidates need to do more than just pass the minimum of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you agreeing that he meets the GNG? You think he needs to do something more than that? It seems you're moving the argument to why he meets the GNG, whereas I'm just sticking to the point of if he meets it. CT55555 (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets Notability Guidelines. I've read a few articles about them recently. Came here for more background and was quite shocked to see there was any question at all about their notability. J. Van Meter (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note @User:J. Van Meter He's a minor part of a New York City Mayoral Democrat primary. Its consistent with WP:ONEEVENT. Every person that ever runs in a New York City mayor Democrat Primary will likely get a news article about them.Yousef Raz (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Yousef Raz, please use the correct pronouns (they/them) when referring to the subject of the article.Sevey13 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG, which is sufficient. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here as they appear to also be notable for their music career. NemesisAT (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NemesisAT:You think they're music qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO?Yousef Raz (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't need to, so long as they meet WP:GNG. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @NemesisAT: Then why have a separate article defining notability specifically for musicians?Yousef Raz (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems pretty clear their biography passes the notability guidelines given the sourcing present. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the current citations in the article demonstrate a wide variety of coverage over a sustained period of time.Sevey13 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point, the chances of this article being deleted are equivalent to a snowball's chance. User:Yousef Raz I encourage you to withdraw this AfD as per WP:SNOW CT55555 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CT55555: I'll wait for the process to complete.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The sources do seem reliable enough and the subject seems to have coverage in both music and politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are plenty of good citations provided. Caphadouk (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough sources to show that this entry is notable. Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2022 (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.