Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemar Thompson

{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log|{{collapse top|bg=#F3F9FF|1=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemar Thompson|padding=1px}}|}}

=[[Kemar Thompson]]=

:{{la|Kemar Thompson}} ([{{fullurl:Kemar Thompson|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemar Thompson}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Person considered that is an example of notability, it fails the requirements of WP:MUSIC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not clear from the nomination statement what sort of research was done to determine this musician's notability. A quick search turns up multiple sources: [http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/html/20070712T220000-0500_125226_OBS_JUNIOR_PINCHERS_HITS_AT_CHEATERS.asp] [http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/html/20070419T220000-0500_121968_OBS_CATCH_DI_RIDDIM.asp] [http://www.jamaica-star.com/thestar/20061122/ent/ent3.html] [http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070902/ent/ent2.html] for example. According to [http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur37537.cfm this source] he had a charted hit in Jamaica. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - A quick search on Google News shows several instances of substantial coverage in reliable sources which treat Thompson and his work as the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemar Thompson||}}

  • Keep Some of the articles above are directly about him, so he passes WP:N and WP:BIO. I see no other issues with the article as it stands. ThemFromSpace 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The nomination is incomprehensible, so there is no basis for a reasoned discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

: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.

{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log|{{collapse bottom}}|}}