Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.T. Reeder

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.T. Reeder

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

Apparent autobiography (user Krisreeder10 has created a number of articles about this artist's works including redirecting to this article) tagged for notability since 11/2016. All citations are to event listings, social media, self-cites, Discogs, Bandcamp, etc. No significant coverage in WP:RS available in article or in WP:BEFORE searches. No verifiable evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC for this individual. Some of the collaborations they have participated in may be notable but notability is not inherited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my experience with all of this, everything in the nomination is correct. The user in question appears to be self-promoting their work, padding an article about themselves and producing other articles to promote their work. They even tried to coin their own "genre" for the music - J Grime, which is also (rightfully) up for deletion. It all fails the WP:GNG and reeks of self-promotion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Thanks for doing al the home work. I to feel this is part of a clever promotional. The article contains far more sound that substance, but when one listens closely, the ring of notability is missing. Dlohcierekim 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete 30 references provided, not a single one significant, all being of the "whatever-is-on-the-internet-is-a-source" variety, as detailed by the nominator. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2017 (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.