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.
Article has no reliable sources for the information within - any sources it may have had may have been deprecated and considered unreliable. Without any citations, the whole article is purely unsourced and no longer meets with WP:V, regardless of notability. GUtt01 (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: Article has had citations added in of late, and most comments seem focused on keeping the article (albeit, with some information removed that is unsourced or original research), thus see no further need to continue discussion based on input given and action taken to attend to issue I laid out.GUtt01 (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If that was the case, such references would have been placed into the article after that AfD over five years ago! Despite this, those sources only cover a fraction of the information in the article, mostly the lede and the involvement in AGT - they don't cover the sections for Education, Early Career (Boston 1998–2000), Career (Brooklyn 2000–2013), Los Angeles (2013–present) and Discography. If those sections aren't covered, not only would WP:V be in serious doubt for the information in these areas, the nature of WP:NMG, particularly WP:MUSICBIO, would be in question as well. So despite there being some references, there is not enough to cover the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No offense to anyone putting forward citations to argue "Keep", but it beggars belief that when no citations were given to the article for over a decade since the notification was made, that it takes a second AfD for someone to realize to find such sources. If you find such citations, not only show them here, but put them in where they are needed, even when this discussion is over. It's hard to understand why five citations in the previous AfD never got put in when that discussion ended.GUtt01 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that notability is concerned with the existence of sources, and not whether they are cited in the article? We don't delete articles simply because the available sources haven't been added yet. If it bothers you that much, you can add them yourself. --Michig (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For most articles, yes, but in biographical articles, its a bit different. When the article has information put in without citations for so long, verification becomes a serious issue, and then notability may be placed in question if the other information have to be deleted. Thus I said the nature of WP:NMG would be in question, if the other information could not be verified, reducing the notability of the article's subject as a result. In addition, it's agreeable we don't delete articles if sources haven't been added in when available, but if they have been around for so long, one must question why it took so long to do so. I would have, but this is the first time I saw the article in my life, so I wouldn't have had reason to source the information. GUtt01 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article needs improvement (in the form of citations) the sources do exist out there to confirm notability WP:GNG, per Eastmain and Michig comments above. AfD is not cleanup WP:DINC. I understand the nominator's point about the problem with the quantity of long-standing unsourced material, however the article could be trimmed of excessive detail and unsourced biographic content and exist as a stub until someone jumps in to improve it. I'll add a few sourced listed above and do a little trimming. Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appreciate it. Wouldn't have nominated this for AfD again, if some people had used a little common sense considered thinking carefully about avoiding this by ensuring citations had been added in after the previous AfD. GUtt01 (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe the nominator would consider following WP:BEFORE and attempting article improvement themselves before making similar nominations in future, as it would use less of the project's resources. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No offense, but as I stated above, perhaps some common sense by others people involved in the previous AfD could have avoided this; I would have if I had checked properly, but even then it may not still have happened, because I might have questioned the citations put forward in the previous discussion. If those citations had been put forward after that discussion, we wouldn't have had this matter crop up. GUtt01 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
