Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future the 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 delete. Fails GNG and WP:MUSIC. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future the Prince

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a musician and manager, not properly sourced as the subject of enough substantive media coverage to clear the inclusion criteria for either role. Of the six footnotes here, #1 is a 44-word blurb about him in a listicle; #2 and #3 are both one-off glancing mentions of his name in articles that aren't about him; #4 is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a Tumblr, which is not a reliable source at all; and #6 is a short blurb which is covering him solely in the context of having had something stolen from him rather than in the context of accomplishing anything relevant to our notability standards for musicians or business managers. The only source that actually might be worth something is #5 (Billboard) -- but it's paywalled, so I can't verify how much it's worth, and even just the most basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one source that's worth anything. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist — but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage comments and more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, to justify inclusion. Mattg82 (talk)

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.