Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turk beezy

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turk beezy

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

Non-notable rapper. I can’t find any independent reliable sources amid all the publicity. If not for his military medals (which are not what he is supposed to be important for) I would nominate this article for speedy deletion per A7. —teb728 t c 05:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with a note that a) this appears to be an autobiography and b) a similar page called Turk Beezy was deleted twice under CSD A7. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updates have been made to give more value to this article including radio airplay and worldwide information supporting the creditability of the article along with reasons for inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkBeezy19912010 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage. While being 44th in the National Airplay Top 50 R&B/Hip-Hop Chart 9/6/2014 might help, the cited source is not recognized as a reliable source, and by itself doesn't show coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (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.