Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Wiley

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 keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wiley

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Inadequate third-party reliable sources to support the WP:MUSIC notability claim. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music is cited twice, but appears to only briefly mention Wiley and Bible Break noting that it "might be the first in it's genre." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify topic is notable but needs incubation. Sourcing could be scrounged up, but I don't like a BLP being up without appropriate sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After doing some looking, I think there is sufficient RS out there about him and his place in Christian rap, such as this, and this. This article just needs better sourcing. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The 1988 Spin article that is referred to but not cited directly in the article is here[1]. Several academic sources quickly pop up on Google Books:[2][3][4].--Jahaza (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the absolute claim to first full length Christian rap album has to be caveated or toned down, it's clear he was an important early proponent. Jahaza (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the Spin source meets WP:DEPTH and WP:RS. Not sure about the depth-of-coverage in the books. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but clean up). The article can be improved with sources found by the folks above, but tone down the prose on how everything he did was the first. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep: I think the Josef Sorett article (his quals: [5]) and the encyclopedia entry are probably just enough for me to think this article meets WP:MUSIC. However, the article still definitely needs a lot of work to be a quality article.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2022 (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.