Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La the Darkman

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 no consensus. We owe deletion candidates a "speedy trial", so a third relist is really too much. Clearly no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La the Darkman

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

DELETE. There is no notability by relation, this is just another dime-a-dozen act. JBsupreme (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a keep. 2007 XXL interview [1] 2006 AllHipHop interview [2], brief Living Notoriously review [3] and badabing, WP:MUSIC is met. Extra extra read all about it: report of claims his debut went gold internationally [4] described as "major player" in Atlanta [5], tiny allmusic bio [6] plus numerous passing mentions of his (also numerous) contributions to high-profile releases, such as Pitchfork's rather unkind "almost comically bad" re "Overboard" [7] and "extraneous dross" re Luda's The Preview[8]. I think there was quite a bit more written on him circa '98 when wu tang affiliates were getting serious notice, but before hip hop had a strong online presence. 89.100.145.57 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only significant coverage identified either by other editors or by my search is in highly specialized sources that stretch the definition of reliable. Don't know where consensus is these days on very specific genre-related sources (so I'm not opining here), but if I ran the circus, these types of sources would be consider reliable for purposes of verifiability, but not notability. ^Bongo_matic 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" Mentioned in Billboard on Dec. 15, 2001 and Aug. 8, 1998. The 1998 article mentions upcoming, unnamed album release featuring members of Wu-Tang Clan, the 2001 that he makes a guest appearance on a V-Ice album. The 2001 article spells his name La tha Darkman. Also in Billboard, his album "Heist of the Century" ranked #9 in the Middle Atlantic region on their "Regional Roundup: Rotating top 10 lists of best-selling titles by new and developing artists" on Dec. 26, 1998. He's mentioned once in an Oct. 26, 2006 Boston Globe review of Method Man's "4:21 ... The Day After" album, on which he makes a guest appearance on one track. More reliable sources, but all passing mentions. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ummm I didn't cite these sources at random, but searched them specifically as sound: AllHipHop's stories have been cited by the NYT, Newsweek, ABC news, Chicago Tribune, USAToday, Rolling Stone and so on and so on (including the Irish Times, the paper of record in my own country), and XXL is one of the premium hip hop print publications in the world, and perhaps the one with the strongest online presence. hiphopdx, though I did not rely on it above, use some established journalists and do some impressive original reporting and independent reviews. None of these outlets cover just anybody; they are excellent indications of notability for hip hop artists. It would be ludicrous to bar specialist media when considering notability in any subject. (The allmusic bio also cannot be ignored as an indication of notability, tiny though it is.) 89.100.145.57 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested was likely (as 89.100.45.87 above), Heist of the Century was reviewed in The Source #111 (December 1998), and the probability of other offline coverage is high. Third-party coverage is now piling up, and all that is set against it is bongo's somewhat plucked out of the air assertion that somehow hip hop publications are "specialized" and therefore "stretch the definition of reliable". I am curious as to why when WP:MUSIC has been so easily met, the AfD is stretching into a third week. 86.44.16.93 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some evidence of notability and coverage. Including doesn't make the encyclopedia worse and it seems best to preserve it pending future events that will either establish notability more firmly or demonstrate that the rapper isn't worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2009 (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.