Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verb T

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) czar · · 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verb T

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

I was astounded to discover this article had been here since 2008. It is unformatted and written in an informal, promotional tone more suited to PR materials than an encyclopedia. Of course, those are problems that can be fixed by simple editing. The utter lack of reliable sources is a more serious problem. I found pretty much nothing about this person, and it seems nobody else has either despite the article being here for five years. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must agree with the nom. I have not been able to find much information about this person other than the standard promotional material and standard album reviews. The lack of sources after this length of time as an article is also a sign of lack of notability. User226 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article is crap at the moment - it looks to be a close paraphrasing of this from his label's site. As we know though, that isn't in itself a reason to delete the article. I should admit that as a fan I am slightly biased with regards to UK Hip Hop, but I think I can demonstrate that WP:NMUSIC is just met. There isn't any coverage in mainstream media, but Verb T has been around for years and there are quite a lot of things in magazines e.g. this, this, this, this, this and UKHH.com and rapnews.co.uk which used to be the go-to places for UKHH information. The Four Owls are probably the most well known UKHH group ever (I've never got round to writing an article, but it would be easy) as this shows. I admit these sources aren't the best in the world, but for more obscure music genres they're all that there is. Hopefully they show that while he's by no means a household name, he isn't a complete nobody either, and that we could write a neutral article about him. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per SmartSE; I think there's just about enough to scrape WP:MUSICBIO. Needs a rewrite, though. — sparklism ^hey! 07:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree there's enough to scrape by for notability. The version at the time of nomination is a a slightly reworded copy of his artis's page as noted above. That's a copyvio and I've swapped out the main text with material from a non-copyvio version in the article history. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2013 (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.