Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knifehandchop

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. Nakon 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knifehandchop

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 00:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 00:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - aware that this isn't a source but can see from number of plays on his last.fm page that he is quite well-known - http://www.last.fm/music/Knifehandchop 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article suggests even minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously the article needs sources, but the artist was part of the early IDM and Breakcore scene. I'm pretty sure the artist hasn't been active in a while, which is why sources are difficult to search for. +mt 22:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them." czar 23:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current state of the article does not prove notability. Ana r chyte 01:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2016 (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.