Deletion of Vinylz (2nd nomination)

Comment: per ; the article exists to promote the subject. Sources offered above, while numerous, are unconvincing they relay closely on the subject's commentary, and I would not consider them sufficient RS to establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)

Comment: I'm sorry but every single source involves the subject talking about themself which essentially makes the sources primary/not independent. This is in addition to the fact that some of the sources like AllHipHop and HotNewHipHop are never supposed to be used per . Our essential criteria is that "secondary sources independent of the subject" are required so that we can write an NPOV article. The quality of the sources clearly doesn't allow that to happen. There is no way I can independently verify the achievements either. Add to that the promotional part and this is a very clear delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP)

Comment: The sourcing by Cunard isn't the best, but repeated coverage in sites with editorial control would indicate that they meet , even if just barely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: as sources such as billboard confirm his releases have charted which means a pass of  which does apply to record producers if read carefully in the later paragraph titled Others which refers to notable melodies, which charting releases surely are
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMUSIC)

Comment: the sources provide by Cunard are significant coverage in reliable sources such as Fader and MTV which are established longstanding rs, Swister Twister is being far too demanding to expect magazine and web articles to be written in the neutral tone of an encyclopedia. Also, regarding personal information about the subject or any subject the reality is that for the press and magazines the information originates from primary sources- what is important is that the information is double- checked and sources such as Fader have a reputation for fact checking so that concern is misplaced. Haven't examined all the sources yet but there seems to be more than enough for  to be passed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: if promotionalism is the major concern the article can be copyedited to address that as he is clearly notable by coverage in established reliable sources such as Fader, MTV and genre- specific rs. As he is the subject of rs coverage he qualifies for a wikipedia article as he also passes  for producing hit compositions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)