Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ E5QUIRE

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ E5QUIRE

[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)

Non-notable DJ, fails WP:GNG and WP:DJ. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 05:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't consider Discogs to be WP:RS, and cite it only in support of facts, never as evidence of notability. I do, however, sometimes cite it as evidence of lack of notability, as I now do. He seems to have recorded precisely one remix, in 2015. For good measure, a Google search turned up precisely nothing that looked WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, etc. Narky Blert (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Discogs consists of user-generated content, and is not proof of lack of notability either. There are multiple reliable articles on Insomniac, Hip Hop Weekly and other blog sources like yourEDM. Seems like the artist has some notability and noteriety within the music and entertainment industry. Although Discogs and other articles along with AllMusic or IMDb may have the more WP:RS than other reliable sources, they do show some noteriety for musicians. Especially independent artists. 22:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B043:458D:6160:2228:B01:8302 (talk)

Do Not Delete. I do consider Discogs to be WP:RS, and actually do cite it only when in support of facts. I do also see that he has some good press on Insomniac and Hip Hop Weekly and this can sometimes be cited as evidence of notability. I do agree that he seems to have recorded a few good remixes, in 2015 and 2017. For good measure, a Google search turned up a few good articles on that looked WP:RS. Passes WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, etc. 11:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.75.34.70 (talk)

Comment. Discogs consists of user-generated content, and is no more WP:RS than, for example, AllMusic or IMDb. Narky Blert (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 14:59, 23 November 2018 (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.