Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Chicks in Party Hats (2nd nomination)
with long-winded reason: Assuming good faith this passes notability for coverage in multiple secondary sources...or at least so it says.  5 different Fat_Chicks_in_Party_Hats#Reviews_and_references_in_popular_culture|references are listed and not one of them is an appropriate citation.  If Premium Magazine conducted an interview, great.  What issue?  What pages of that issue?  If there is a web version of the magazine, where is the link?  This presumably passes  and then seems to be intent on throwing that away by boldly failing that whole "verifiable" part of .  Beyond this, the article is written like a fansite, and it's horribly awash in |weasel words (particularly Fat_Chicks_in_Party_Hats#Who_is_Miguel.3F|here) presumably to once again avoid that pesky task of actually looking up citations.  I mean really: "Some believe he is actually Seanbaby himself...".  Who thinks that?  The author?  The author's friend who once sent him an e-mail with a link to the site?  I'm willing to nudge my opinion to "weak keep" if citations are added, but the OR and POV seriously need to be cleaned up as well
— User:Markeer, 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NN||WP:V||WP:WEASEL (Wikipedia:Notability)