Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse (hip hop artist)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. I'm not crediting the contribution of the last participant. The vote is three to one, but more importantly, there is a distinct lack of references in publications proven to be reliable and relevant. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adverse (hip hop artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable. Plus the only source here is the subjects Myspace page. Koala15 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 9. Snotbot t • c » 14:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Subject is notable. See here, here (review no longer online), and as a member of The Dorian Three here and here. He simply hasn't been active in a long time, but notability doesn't expire. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest a move to Adverse (rapper) though. The alternative would be to create an article for The Dorian Three and move the content of the Adverse article there. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak deleteDelete - no assertion of notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. He has worked with a few notable people, but is not yet notable as a musician himself. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject meets notability as per WP:MUSICBIO #1. See above links. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSICBIO #1 says "...subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" in reliable secondary sources. Hiphopinfinity.com and killprettymagazine.com look like blogs. Adverse is mentioned in the Tiny Mix Tapes article about The Dorian Three, but it's not substantial coverage about him. Have you got any more sources? Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of them are blogs. Kill Pretty Magazine is a magazine, Hip Hop Infinity was a website with a paid staff. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've added the Tiny Mix Tapes ref you found, plus a short interview with him that I just found in a Utah newspaper. I can't find anything online about Kill Pretty or HHI to show that they're WP:RS, but let's keep digging: maybe between us we can find enough to squeak it through MUSICBIO, in which case I'll be glad to change my vote. Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand; is it not clear from the two websites that they are, respectively, a magazine with an editorial staff and a website with an editorial staff? There's even a section on the Kill Pretty site labeled 'blog', indicating that the other content on the site isn't a blog, and there's an image of someone reading a physical copy of the magazine. HHI was pretty famous about ten years ago in the alt-rap scene; it was owned and managed by Jay Seagraves, it was a business, with a paid staff, certainly not a blog (see the old message board for instance: there is a sub-forum called 'Staff Board'). Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's clear that they're not blogs, but their notability is unclear, so I wouldn't count what we've got so far as "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in WP:RS". A week's gone by, and neither you nor I can find any further WP:RS on him, so in the absence of significant secondary coverage, and the rest of WP:MUSICBIO, I have to say delete. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Their notability is irrelevant. We're trying to establish the notability of the subject, not of the sources. It's not a question of notability, in the sense that it's not a question of whether Hip Hop Infinity or Kill Pretty Magazine qualify for Wikipedia articles of their own, it's a question of their reliability as sources that establish the notability of the subject Adverse. They do meet the criterion of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." And we're now up to coverage in four separate sources, meeting the criterion of multiple sources: Hip Hop Infinity, Kill Pretty Magazine, Tiny Mixtapes & Steamboat Today. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I'm not being precise enough above, but their reliability is also unknown for now, staff or no staff. So we only have two sources so far that I would call reliable, which in the (admittedly fuzzy) definition of "significant" and "substantial", isn't really enough IMHO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How, in theory, would we go about determining their reliability, if having a paid editorial staff isn't enough? How do we determine the reliability of sources in general? Questionable sources are defined as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." This doesn't apply to any of the four sources that we have. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, considering two of the sources are interviews with the subject and the other two are album reviews, it seems that reliability (on the basis of the presence of editorial oversight) can be assumed without any problem. It's not as though one of the sources is a third-party bio making dubious claims about the subject. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like hair-splitting to me. I can see the photo on the Kill Pretty "About" page you linked to above of someone reading a printed copy. That about page is the description of a fan mag compiled by a group of friends. Going by its shop page and its preview page, it appears to have only ever had one issue. Nothing about it having a paid staff, or editorial oversight, or anything in secondary sources that tells us whether it's reliable or unreliable. Since we can find next to nothing about it outside of its own site, we have no evidence that it's a WP:RS. Same applies for HHI. With no way to determine their reliablility yet, then we shouldn't rely on those two sources as evidence of notability. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I'm not being precise enough above, but their reliability is also unknown for now, staff or no staff. So we only have two sources so far that I would call reliable, which in the (admittedly fuzzy) definition of "significant" and "substantial", isn't really enough IMHO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Their notability is irrelevant. We're trying to establish the notability of the subject, not of the sources. It's not a question of notability, in the sense that it's not a question of whether Hip Hop Infinity or Kill Pretty Magazine qualify for Wikipedia articles of their own, it's a question of their reliability as sources that establish the notability of the subject Adverse. They do meet the criterion of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." And we're now up to coverage in four separate sources, meeting the criterion of multiple sources: Hip Hop Infinity, Kill Pretty Magazine, Tiny Mixtapes & Steamboat Today. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's clear that they're not blogs, but their notability is unclear, so I wouldn't count what we've got so far as "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in WP:RS". A week's gone by, and neither you nor I can find any further WP:RS on him, so in the absence of significant secondary coverage, and the rest of WP:MUSICBIO, I have to say delete. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand; is it not clear from the two websites that they are, respectively, a magazine with an editorial staff and a website with an editorial staff? There's even a section on the Kill Pretty site labeled 'blog', indicating that the other content on the site isn't a blog, and there's an image of someone reading a physical copy of the magazine. HHI was pretty famous about ten years ago in the alt-rap scene; it was owned and managed by Jay Seagraves, it was a business, with a paid staff, certainly not a blog (see the old message board for instance: there is a sub-forum called 'Staff Board'). Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've added the Tiny Mix Tapes ref you found, plus a short interview with him that I just found in a Utah newspaper. I can't find anything online about Kill Pretty or HHI to show that they're WP:RS, but let's keep digging: maybe between us we can find enough to squeak it through MUSICBIO, in which case I'll be glad to change my vote. Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of them are blogs. Kill Pretty Magazine is a magazine, Hip Hop Infinity was a website with a paid staff. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSICBIO #1 says "...subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" in reliable secondary sources. Hiphopinfinity.com and killprettymagazine.com look like blogs. Adverse is mentioned in the Tiny Mix Tapes article about The Dorian Three, but it's not substantial coverage about him. Have you got any more sources? Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject meets notability as per WP:MUSICBIO #1. See above links. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 07:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Who? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's notable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable enough to be on English Wikipedia. --JayJaykar (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)— JayJaykar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- How is he notable? Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2013 (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.