Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Parker (producer)

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 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Parker (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An internet personality and music producer fails to pass WP:GNG can't find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support WP:NBIO. GSS (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bluemoonnight (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@A59x: Sorry mate the subject still fails so meet the requirements and having profile on ESPN doesn't make someone notable it must satisfy WP:NSPORT. GSS (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The music genre is already small it's not rap it's not rock or pop so you can't expect MTV coverage, the artist in discussion is notable enough in his field as per Google search. The submitted links are as good as any coverage an artist that produces trance music could ever get especially at that young age. The best part about Wikipedia is that it's not static encyclopedia and it can always be updated. The article fits if not average at least the minimum requirements to pass as relevant especially that there are articles with less relevannce in terms of references that are already active here and been that way for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A59x (talkcontribs) 09:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@A59x: Google search result showing nothing to support the notability rather than some unreliable and user generated sources which are not acceptable. GSS (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2016 (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.