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. In the future, if you change your "vote", please strike out the one that no longer represents your point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parlay Starr[edit]

Parlay Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Older article that hasn't been well-sourced for years. Normally, an older article like this I'd either do a {{sources exist}} or nominate it for procedural deletion, but sources don't *really* exist on Google and it's been recently edited (so a PROD tag would likely get deleted). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any notable or significant coverage of the topic, fails GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE. Other than the one source in the article I can't find anything at all on Google news, newspaper, or books Bearian (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least find some other way to preserve the content, as there is at least one source. This article receives about 2 views per day, and the fact that an anonymous editor added a 2024 album, recently, suggests there may be sources out there that do not show up with a Google search. The content had to have landed in the article somehow, it is just nobody has bothered to cite their sources at the time, and they have now all gone away. Although there is a connected contributor, the article is not really written like WP:PROMO. Perhaps redirect to a broader topic, or try a broader search under his real name. I can find a page on SoundCloud without too much trouble and also United Gangs, among others. Although there is not much actually written about him since 2014. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

  @Cameron Dewe We need about 3-5 independent, reliable sources that have a significant mention of Starr for him to be considered notable. So, not the ones you listed out, unfortunately. Also, since @Liz didn't ping you with this (they probably just forgot; it happens), but you would need to suggest a redirect; article deletion just hides content from public view, anyways, it doesn't actually delete it from the server. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know this might be tenuous, but merge and redirect as a footnote to Tha Realest, who was a guest artist on one of Parlay Starr's recordings in 2010. Deletion will leave a red link in that artist's discography, as well as his article, which are the only two articles that link to the subject. This action will reduce the risk of resurrection if the decision is made to delete. The alternative is to remove the wiki-links as part of any post-deletion clean-up. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cameron Dewe Redlinks aren't something to be universally avoided, therefore don't universally need to be removed. Overlinking should be avoided and should be fixed, but that's regardless of whether or not the articles exists; "seas of blue" and "seas of red" both need to be avoided. Also, there's some lists on Wikipedia that are broadly-defined and extensive enough that you need to add only articles that exist to it, but that's an exception to the rule that's often explictly stated in hidden comments inside these lists.

  You've expressed concern that a redlink would decrease the likelihood of recreation. Redlinks actually increase the chances of an article being created, more so than a redirect. This is in part because recreating an article over a redirect is more easily reverted than recreating a deleted article. To be clear, I don't support reflexively reverting a recreation of an article over a redirect; I'm just saying it's more easily reverted. It's hitting an undo button (with a redirect) vs. nominating the article for deletion again (with outright recreation).

  Like I said previously, article deletion just hides content from public view, anyways, it doesn't actually delete it from the server. In fact, admins can still look at almost all articles that have been "deleted." If Starr ever becomes notable, the content can, in fact, be restored. In fact, premature creation of temporarily non-notable subjects is one reason why articles are hidden instead of deleted (along with the occasional accidental deletion, accountability, etc.). The article is likely to be restored in draftspace or in someones' sandbox so reliable sources can be added before it's moved to mainspace, but it's still restorable.

  And yeah, redirect to a guest artist is pretty tenuous, particularly with the above context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @I dream of horses: Having considered whats been said, this is a biography of a living person so a high standard of citations are needed. So if the citations are not there and the historic ones have been lost, this is effectively an unverified article, so I am forced to agree that deletion inevitably follows. If someone wants to recreate this article in the future then they will need better citations than now exist. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cameron Dewe Thank you for absorbing what's been said. It might be worth it to officially change your vote to delete/soft delete (a "soft delete" is a delete with an explicit undeletion offer.) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @I dream of horses: Ok. Delete on the condition that a request for undeletion can be made in the future should this living person subsequently become notable, either under a nom-de-plume or his real name. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. But if you are going to suggest a possible Redirect as a resolution, you have to name the target article you think is appropriate. That is not a closer's job.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking SIGCOV. I will add that I see fairly clear consensus to delete this article, given that Cameron Dewe (the only keep !voter) ultimately agrees with deletion above. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (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.