Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icetre

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. Ignoring the blanking, which could be a sign of frustration, there's no evidence of an N:MUSIC pass given disagreement on the status of Empire. Star Mississippi 03:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icetre

[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)

The subject of this article doesn't meet any of the criteria listed at WP:SINGER. I tagged it with a notability tag initially but the tag was removed. A google news search turns up a single article by LA Weekly where two sentences were written about the subject in a "Hottest Artists to Watch in 2023" article. https://www.laweekly.com/hottest-artists-to-watch-in-2023/

Clearly not enough to establish notability. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Withdrawn by nominator~~

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Philipnelson99|(talk) 19:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look more into the subject. Do not base it on one article. The subject meets the criteria based off of Guideline #5 which states: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

The subject is signed to EMPIRE Distribution, whom acts as a major and independent record label (look into this as well). The subject has released two or more albums, fulfilling the guideline of #5 and to be noted, EMPIRE Distribution's roster consists of highly rated names that you would know of.

Further more, EMPIRE Distribution promotes their artists very well with promotion and very adequate marketing. LAWeekly's Wikipedia states "The paper covers Los Angeles music, arts, film, theater, culture, concerts, and events." They are very notable but there is no payola so a "script" isn't being placed out there. They write what they feel but claiming a few short words discredits the request for notability is inadequate and I choose to appeal it on the grounds that the subject has in fact enough to prove notability.

If felt that it only meets half (50/50) then I would be satisfied and would concede with it remaining a stub and it be promptly removed from "requests of deletion" with the sticker being removed from the top of the article, if both parties concede for it to remain a stub article.

Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the subject's song was not only voted to be chosen for LAWeekly coverage but the subject's song was also voted to be featured on LAWeekly's Hottest Hits of 2023 playlist on Spotify. That more than proves notability, is LAWeekly not a reputable source anymore? I contest the ruling. There are 12 cited sources for the subject, there is sufficient evidence and proof that the subject is notable enough for an acceptance of a Wikipedia article or a continuance of a stub article. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If guideline #5 is accepted for notability but there is still that sliver of doubt that puts it on the fence then the stub article will be an efficient solution. The stub Wikipedia definition states: "A stub is an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion."

In a nutshell, the subject may lack coverage but useful information has been given and is capable of expansion. There will be an acceptance on our end of a stub tag has to be placed on the article. That is fine.

It states: "Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template."

Possible Solution: The subject can keep their page as a stub article instead of an article of creation, the tag for deletion can be removed from the top but the tag for it being a stub article stays, and the subject gain more notability from the Guidelines in order to appease enough to have expansion granted and eventually its stub template be removed and reviewed for an article of creation, but with only enough sufficient evidence and proof towards the guidelines.

How does this solution sound? Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing on behalf of Icetre? Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. The rules clearly state "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I withdrew my nomination. The reason I asked about you editing on behalf of the article is because you said something would "be fine on our end". that doesn't change the validity of the #5 claim that you pointed out, hence my withdrawal of the deletion nomination. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I completely understand about the "be fine on our end" part. I do a lot of writing and research but I get busy often so I have a friend on stand by to help with extra research if I can't get around to any of it due to a schedule conflict so that's who I was co-referencing when I said that phrase. You know how that can be when time gets away from you. and in light of the nomination withdraw, thank you very much for the re-consideration on the situation. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to close the AFD for Icetre out? An auto-bot re-marked it and the AFD tag appeared on the top of the Wikipedia so it went back into rotation on your original ruling except others were wanting to void it even though you made your decision to withdraw the nomination. If we can close out the AFD for the subject then just let me know. Please and thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually decided to let this sit and I've retracted my withdrawal. comments from @duffbeerforme below are the reason for my retraction. It's also not a good idea to remove AfD templates until someone closes the AfD which I did not do, I merely withdrew my nomination. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was admittedly unclear about the AFD templates so I will take that as a learning lesson as I did not know that before hand about the withdraw. There is no problem with that. As far as @Duffbeerforme I have made a very strong and well written argument as to why EMPIRE is considered a record label. A logical defense for EMPIRE has been provided and unless @Duffbeerforme can provide sufficient evidence that rules against EMPIRE as a record label.

and to be clear he is stating that its one or the other, not both and I am stating the case that it is both but operates separately in operates entities.

There was a legal issue between the show Empire that aired on FOX and Empire Distribution. One of the biggest issues was who gained control over "Empire Records" since EMPIRE is a record label their artists were signed to EMPIRE Records but FOX had Empire Records for their TV show and the result was FOX proved to be the winner which resulted in EMPIRE dropping "Records" from EMPIRE Records. From there they rebranded as Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc.

This is solid proof that EMPIRE fits under the record label stature of Guideline #5. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that does nothing to tell us whether or not the Icetre records were on the EMPIRE label... Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely establishing EMPIRE as a record label which was an ongoing debated issue. Please refer to my other current responses as I have responded with more evidence. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False. Here is cited information by Universal Music Group stating that EMPIRE is a record label. For the record, on Guideline #5, when you click on the "major record label" section, Universal Music Group is one of the record labels that appear. I have bolded the words that speak evidence to my case that EMPIRE is not only a "distribution company" but in fact an independent label and valid for Guideline #5.

Here is the article

https://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-group-empire-form-strategic-distribution-agreement/

SANTA MONICA, April 25, 2018 — Universal Music Group (UMG), the world leader in music-based entertainment, today announced a multi-year global agreement with EMPIRE, the San Francisco-based independent music company founded by Ghazi Shami, to provide strategic distribution services to UMG’s labels and artists to complement UMG’s existing global distribution network.

Under the agreement, UMG and EMPIRE will work together on select artist projects from UMG’s labels that will benefit from EMPIRE’s unique approach to distribution, digital sales, promotion and marketing.

About EMPIRE

Founded in 2010, EMPIRE has grown to become the leading independent distributor and label for urban music in the United States. Its clients include labels and artists, both developing and veteran stars, across hip hop, R&B, Latin, reggae, pop, rock, gospel, and country. The company has provided distribution, label services, and promotion forsingles and albums by artists including Anderson .Paak, XXXTENTACION, Cardi B, Kendrick Lamar, DRAM, Fat Joe & Remy Ma, Migos, Shaggy, Snoop Dogg and many more. Find out more at: https://www.empi.re/

About Universal Music Group

Universal Music Group (UMG) is the world leader in music-based entertainment, with a broad array of businesses engaged in recorded music, music publishing, merchandising and audiovisual content in more than 60 countries. Featuring the most comprehensive catalog of recordings and songs across every musical genre, UMG identifies and develops artists and produces and distributes the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful music in the world. Committed to artistry, innovation and entrepreneurship, UMG fosters the development of services, platforms and business models in order to broaden artistic and commercial opportunities for our artists and create new experiences for fans. Universal Music Group is a Vivendi company. Find out more at: http://www.universalmusic.com.

Date: April 25, 2018

A distribution company only would handle distribution, they do not handle promotion or marketing as stated above. Further more, the section where it says "label services" can be argued that promotion and marketing are two fundamental aspects needed and necessary in terms of "label services." It is also repeatedly stated that it is independent while acting as a music company, record label, distributor, and publishing. I argue that Guideline #5 is still valid as EMPIRE is a record label and that distribution does not prevent it from being a record label the distribution only further adds onto the record label's resources but it does not make it solely a distribution company.

Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I cite the Wikipedia definition of "record label"

A record label, or record company, or simply records, is a brand or trademark of music recordingsand music videos, or the company that owns it. Sometimes, a record label is also a publishingcompany that manages such brands and trademarks, coordinates the production, manufacture, distribution, marketing, promotion, and enforcement of copyright for sound recordings and music videos, while also conducting talent scouting and development of new artists, and maintaining contracts with recording artists and their managers. The term "record label" derives from the circular label in the center of a vinyl record which prominently displays the manufacturer's name, along with other information.

Distribution is defined as this:

Distribution is the process of making a product or service available for the consumer or business user who needs it, and a distributor is a business involved in the distribution stage of the value chain. Distribution can be done directly by the producer or service provider or by using indirect channels with distributors or intermediaries. Distribution (or place) is one of the four elements of the marketing mix: the other three elements being product, pricing, and promotion.
Distribution only makes up one of the four elements of the marketing mix while as product, pricing, and promotion is under the record labels' umbrella.
1. Distributors do not make the price, they simply distribute the product.
2. Distributors only distribute a product if they have said product, they have no involvement otherwise with creation of said product.
3. Distributors do not handle promotion, even if a product is distributed to a special event they are not within the knowledge or have the power to change the distribution destination otherwise that would be considered a conflict of interest and would justify criminal charges.
EMPIRE is considered through technicality a record label based on evidence that it can provide 3 of the marketing mix while as a distribution company can only provide 1 of the marketing mix.

I rest my case. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and to cite from EMPIRE's Wikipedia:

"they have distributed and/or are still distributing artists such as Kendrick Lamar, Schoolboy Q, Problem, Snoop Dogg, and Crooked I. They've also been involved in New York with releases from Fat Joe, Styles P, Cam'ron, and Busta Rhymes. On the R&B side, they have signed artists such as Eric Bellinger, Jacquees, Jesse Boykins III, Jonn Hart, and Lyrica Anderson."

These are high name acts that you may or may not have heard of. Those are artists who were signed by EMPIRE to their record label while as other artists were simply distributed but not signed to the label itself. Those R&B artists who were signed were signed under a recording contract, which constitutes and adds weight to the claim that EMPIRE is also a record label. If they had sign a distribution deal then they would be under the "they have distributed and/or are still distributing artists such as" section. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so looking into to it. I don't think you can find a source that says Icetre was actually signed to EMPIRE. And the albums on the page don't appear to published by EMPIRE at all. Discogs isn't a valid source for that info and neither is MusicBrainz. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of EMPIRE has been established, which is good. The subjects's paper trail of EMPIRE is within the licensing. Apple Music and Spotify do not provide EMPIRE's title but Youtube has the records and further evidence. Youtube indexes Youtube Music to their Youtube descriptions which shows that Icetre's music is under the EMPIRE record label.

Here is a cited example:

Icetre - House Party

The description goes as follows: Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution

House Party · Icetre · Miscellaneous House Party (feat. Miscellaneous) ℗ 2017 Blazington Music Group Released on: 2017-10-20 Auto-generated by YouTube.

This version of

House Party

says:

EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group); BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., UMPG Publishing... This is viewable in the description and scrolled down to the licenses section on the Youtube app .

All 3 albums of the subjects read "Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution"

Pisces Gold 2.0

28

Slime To Tha 5

and the subjects latest song as of 6 months ago shows the same "Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution" description on the video

Here is the song

Old School (2004)

This is irrefutable proof that the subject is a legitimate artist with EMPIRE.

Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't tell me if the albums were on the label, simply that a distribution company provided the info and you're running into the problem @Duffbeerforme pointed out. The evidence you've provided doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The site https://empire.empi.re does not have a roster for any artists, their roster list is on Wikipedia. EMPIRE has the subject under them and the subject has a record label underneath EMPIRE, Blazington Music Group. On the subject's album 28, on Youtube the licensing says "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)." The subject is an artist with EMPIRE and has their own faction under EMPIRE, the Blazington Music Group. This is why it is says "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)." Bunkytrap34 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence I provided proves sufficient enough for Guideline #5 which is the subject has released two or more albums on a major record label or an independent record label. Licensing data exists and shows that the subject's music listed in their Wikipedia aligns correctly with Catalog Numbers, UPC and ISRC codes that come from the EMPIRE catalog. The catalog numbers begin with ED which is short for EMPIRE Distribution. The subject's was signed, began a record label underneath EMPIRE, and their music is distributed under Blazington Music Group but released under EMPIRE.

Evidence has been given and shown that the subject has legitimately released two or more albums under a major record label or an independent record label. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had time to think everything through and consider the evidence provided? There would be satisfaction with the original solution of the subject's Wikipedia remaining a stub but for the stub tag to be removed the subject has to provide necessary information in the future for expansion in order for a larger article to be created. Also Happy Thanksgiving I hope you have a great one @Philipnelson99 Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have and I strongly favor deletion. This person does not come close to meeting WP:SINGER and your walls of text have done nothing to tell me if those records were actually on the EMPIRE label. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I have consulted with the support team at EMPIRE about this matter and they informed me that they are willing to provide screenshots of royalties and earnings within their own database with the UPC codes of the records that were mentioned so that can provide the necessary information that the subject is indeed with EMPIRE. I would not be providing large amounts of information if I did not believe that the subject has met a guideline for acceptance.

There is an issue

You initially said that the subject met Guideline #5, then the legitimacy of the record label was challenged, I proved the legitimacy of the record label, then the legitimacy of the subject being on the record label was challenge, I am in the middle of proving the legitimacy of this but if the legitimacy is proven then the subject meets Guideline #5 which is they have released two or more albums on a major or independent record label.

Under your same terms its about proving legitimacy of Guideline #5 I vote that the rules stay that way to prove there is no bias or conflict of interest. This should be fair for all parties considered. We should not be moving the goal post. That is not playing fair and I feel that would almost violate some sort of rules for the editors. Let's do this fair.

If the legitimacy can be proven then under fairness the subject's Wikipedia stays under Guideline #5. Even @Duffbeerforme's initial issue was whether Guideline #5 was valid for EMPIRE. I proved that it was so that was satisfactory evidence in all technicalities. The legitimacy of proving the subject's records being released on EMPIRE is underway but if that can be proven then I feel that by the fairness of the Wikipedia community that it should be valid for the subject to retain and keep their Wikipedia stub. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment from User:Philipnelson99: You said before that the EMPIRE site doesn't have a roster for artists but they do have pages for individual releases. If Icetre is on the label it would be on Empire's site and I've confirmed his most recent albums is not listed there. Furthermore, iTunes even has an EMPIRE records page which Icetre isn't on.[1]

It's clear that all of your claims above do not show that the records above are on the EMPIRE record label, and aside from the obviously unmet record label claim, there is no evidence that Icetre meets the criteria outlined in WP:SINGER.

A comment posted by the artist on Genius (company) claims that EMPIRE and Blazington Records are connected and have been since 2014[2], but it still appears that Icetre's records are published by Blazington not empire. Furthermore, the artist published content on WP:GENIUS is WP:BLPSELFPUB and thus completely unreliable. Same goes for anything published on Blazington Music's socials given their apparent ties to Icetre. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean by moving the goal post. There is clear evidence that the subject's music was released under the EMPIRE label with the evidence cited but you are making the claim that if it is not done a specific way then it does not count. A second or third opinion is definitely needed for this. I feel like you are being biased with the subject and therefore unfair.

The subject legitimately released the music on EMPIRE and evidence was provided that it was released but you are requiring extra steps that once proven then require more extra steps. It was proven the subject was on the label, then it was proven EMPIRE was a record label, then it was proven that the subject's music was released under EMPIRE on YouTube, and now you are requiring the release be on the website and iTunes, how many times are you going to move the goal post?

I feel like the community needs to be apart of this decision because I feel there is clear bias from you @Philipnelson99 Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Bunkytrap34, can you 100% without a doubt proved he is signed to EMPIRE and that the albums on the page were released on the EMPIRE label? I'm looking at the iTunes pages and see no mention of EMPIRE in the copyright section. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can, please refer to the reply that I had just posted a moment ago. Spotify and Apple Music have seemingly hidden the data for many artists while only providing sometimes just a single label name but not the main record label but Youtube has the information including licensing information which helps provides further evidence. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the SoundExchange website https://isrc.soundexchange.com/?tab=%22simple%22&artistName=%22icetre%22&currentPage=4&showReleases=true, the subject's music is listed along with the ISRC code and the matches to the songs.

EMPIRE signed the subject and with the creation of the subject's record label there was no necessary need for EMPIRE to be listed if the subject was already underneath the record label. The phrase "hat on a hat" applies here. This is why the subject's label says "Blazington Music Group". There was no necessary need to put both as the subject already releases music under the EMPIRE record label but underneath the subject's record label Blazington Music Group.

This is why the Youtube data reads the way it does versus the way it reads on iTunes and Spotify.

The subject is legitimately an artist with EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here is the evidence.

I can you 100% without a doubt prove the subject is signed to EMPIRE and that the albums on the page were released on the EMPIRE label

On the mobile version of Youtube, the subject's releases "28", "Pisces Gold 2.0", and "Slime To Tha 5" are properly licensed and since the subject has their own record label, Blazington Music Group, underneath EMPIRE it becomes recorded on the licensing information.

I cite that the information says under "LICENSES"

"EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)

Licensing information comes from the record label itself, not distribution.

This is solid evidence that the releases are under EMPIRE otherwise it would not show EMPIRE on the licensing information. Also evidence of releases under EMPIRE is that it says on behalf of Blazington Music Group but if it was distributed through Blazington Music Group then it would say Distributed by Blazington Music Group.

I argue that this is solid and concrete evidence that the releases were released under EMPIRE and that the subject satisfies the original ruling of whether the subject meets Guideline #5 or not.

@Duffbeerforme @Philipnelson99 @Shellwood @Skynxnex @Wcquidditch Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tag us all. That's completely unnecessary and arguably WP:CANVASSING. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad I did not mean to make it seem like canvassing, only tagged everyone involved just to see how everyone felt about the evidence provided.

But I think the "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group) proof is solid for a case that the subject is under and has released said albums under EMPIRE and that the subject is fit for a stay of stub article due to fulfilling the Guideline #5.

Is this satisfactory enough for you to withdraw your nomination? I hate that I am keeping you online back and forth with the matter of this subject. I hope you and I can get this taken care of and we can close out the article for deletion for Thanksgiving.

No, I feel this deletion discussion should continue and more opinions should be considered. I understand you want it to be over but that's not how this process works. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that is no problem. The solid 100% without a doubt evidence is the response that has everyone tagged in it. I had a feeling that there would be other opinions needed and so that's why I tagged everyone in there so they could see it for themselves and draw an unbiased decision based on the evidence I provided and not because they were swayed by your opinion. All opinions are welcome so it will be better to get the opinions from others on the cited evidence for acceptance under Guideline #5.

I feel as if the evidence is concrete. I noticed that you did not mention anything further about the subject so maybe there was satisfactory enough evidence to suffice but that further opinions would be needed. Something as a community vote if you will.

I do not mind if the subject has to have their stub article reviewed by the community in order to draw a final conclusion on if it fulfills Guideline #5. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so the nominator, Philipnelson99, said they were withdrawing (the withdraw itself was withdrawn as I was writing this comment) the nom but didn't close the discussion (and no one else did); afterwards extensive discussion occurred here instead of the article talk page. A editor has since suggested deletion so it feels a bit iffy to speedily close based on my reading of WP:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). But, I am open to other ideas/not saying my interpretation is definitive saying that so some attention will be paid. Thanks. (this was written while the withdraw was still active but leaving it mostly as-is.) Skynxnex (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) 03:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex, my withdrawal was on the basis that someone else voted for deletion. Sorry if I inadvertently broke the process. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Philipnelson99 I didn't mean to imply you did anything incorrect, just that we were in a slightly unusual situation compared to other AfDs I've seen. Since the discussion remained open, I think you're fine with deciding to not withdraw the nomination. In the future, if you do decide to withdraw a nomination, feel free to close it as well assuming it meets the criteria listed at the link I shared. (For example, I think the discussion that continued was reason enough to not close it.) Skynxnex (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I read the policy but was unsure if closing a discussion which I brought was a good idea given that only myself and the page creator had commented here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was the issue with the original AFD not being closed out. I mistakenly removed the tag on the thought that that's what would close out the AFD I did not know it had to be closed out by the nominator. This resulted in a second discussion based around the record label the subject is currently with. While this is great for diligence I feel as if the case that I made in defense of said record label was adequate enough to satisfy any doubts.

I have used a lot of proof and cited information for the case so I hope everyone involved thoroughly reads the evidence based around the second discussion and the record label's authenticity.

Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my delete comment. Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform for people with a obvious conflict of interest, looking at you Stephen Best, your claim otherwise is not even remotely close to being believable. Stick to other platforms where there is a big push. Search finds PR on sites like a bombardment at Medium by the same author (google icetre stephen best) such as crap like this but Medium is not a reliable source. Lacks independent coverage from reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about COI in regards to this subject and Philip is right here but you are on the wrong page. It is under the COI tag. I have proven there is no COI and I have proven that the subject is on EMPIRE. As Philip stated, writing abut the article subject multiple times is not a COI in and of itself. This entire nomination is whether it meets Guideline #5, so not to be mean but lets stay on subject here. We are not discussing any other claims of this and or that, it all stays on the subject of whether Guideline #5 is met. We are not discussing Guideline #1 which is reliable sources and independent coverage we are discussing Guideline #5 and it also states "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." and the claim that the subject is an artist on EMPIRE is found within reliable and reputable sources.

Here is the claim for the subject being on the record label on TheOrg: https://theorg.com/org/empire-distribution/org-chart/icetre

And it is not the only site that claims the subject as an artist with EMPIRE that is independent from the subject and verifiable

Here is the debate on COI raised by Philip, the original nominator

COI possibility[edit source]

After reading through the page creator's (User:Bunkytrap34) user page, I've determined there is a high likelihood of a conflict of interest. I see that the user says they are "Stephen Best" and they have written about the article subject multiple times (that's not a COI in and of itself).

Furthermore, the apparent record label the artist owns and operates has "Stephen Best" listed as the person who wrote the artist biography on several associated platforms.[1] (one of the platforms is not linked due to it being on the spam blacklist)

I'm extremely concerned about an undisclosed COI, especially since I was told there was no COI before. Additionally, I found that this account had uploaded a photo to Commons that appears to be of IceTre Media:IceTre in 2020.jpg and the description says

The music video for IceTre’s song “Understand Me” was filmed in 2020. Behind the scenes footage and photo shoots were to be captured as requested on the set of the music video. A team of videographers, press, and social media managers were present for correct handling of the project at hand.

This file is labeled as Bunkytrap34's own work.
So, User:Bunkytrap34, could you explain this? I don't mean to be accusatory but paid editing and conflicts of interest are very important issues for Wikipedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Hello there, I am able to provide explanations:
Yes I have written about the article subject multiple times as that's not a COI in and of itself as you stated.

The biography I wrote was well received so the subject took it upon themselves to include it and properly cited with "Stephen Best." This is why the name is listed as the person who wrote the artist biography on several associated platforms (I am not aware of all several.) But I am happy that they kept the name out of respect for the person who wrote it. As far as writing for the subject's record label I am not currently employed or on their payroll. I cannot pass that along to the subject to change it but I am glad I could clear that part up that I am not a writer under their label but merely wrote the biography used.

Yes I uploaded the image but it is not my own work. Admittedly I tried to upload it the other way but it would not display the photo once it was uploaded. It did work when It was uploaded under own work so that is my bad for the confusion. I did not take the photo and that is why I phrased everything the way I did from an editors perspective since I wasn't there. I had mentioned that "Behind the scenes footage and photo shoots were to be captured as requested on the set of the music video." but I wasn't there to witness whether it was captured as requested or not.
Bunkytrap34 (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]

One thing I did notice is that the biography I wrote has been reworded a few different times and not all biographies are an exact match on some of these platforms. I would most likely conclude that the subject's biography was edited with different information or updated with new information but the original that I wrote was still the backbone of the biography hence why the name "Stephen Best" was still included.

and now that I think of it, with that many biographies floating around and my name attached with them I can see how someone even at EMPIRE could draw a conclusion that I write for the subject's record label when in fact I wrote one biography and its been edited and posted multiple times in relation to the subject. I think that is honestly what we are dealing with here. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
That was my reply on the COI page.

Bunkytrap34 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme Have you taken a chance to review my response?

Honestly I think you both are taking this personal.

for example: Your first issue was whether or not EMPIRE was a record label or not.

That was proven it was.

Now its whether there is a COI or not.

Evidence was provided about this but what else are you going to come up with after the COI or are you going to be satisfied? That's why it seems like it is personal because every time something has enough evidence to hold up then there is something else that has to become satisfied. I have enough evidence for a solid case for Guideline #5 and each time it is shown clear and concrete evidence then @Philipnelson99 simply denies it or moves the goal post and says it needs to be "his way or the highway." He said "can you prove 100% without a doubt that the subject's releases were through EMPIRE?" and I provided sufficient evidence but I can clearly show that he is goal post moving because he said "well those releases are not on the website or on the EMPIRE iTunes page." That is goal post moving and he does not want to admit it because I feel like he is taking this personally. He could say "well even though it shows he released it on the label it needs to be proven to me with a video that someone took of the subject signing the paperwork with the EMPIRE president in the photo as well." This is extreme and shows that there is never going to be satisfactory evidence for the editor due to goal post moving.

I feel like this is "taking it personal" especially where as I showed the subject's releases were in fact released through EMPIRE then Philip simply says "it needs to be on the website or it does not count." It is a clear abuse of power to use your own singular thought as the "only" option which I think is why he wanted to keep the discussion opened. The subject's music on EMPIRE can be proven by licensing and record label data on the websites, the subject's music does not need to be on the very front page of the EMPIRE website co-signed by the EMPIRE president himself in order for this claim of the subject's music releasing through EMPIRE to be met.
We need others to chime in on this entire discussion. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cite that page from The Org, but it says at the top that it's an unverified company.[3] That site is not enough to verify that Icetre is truly on the record label. I'm not "moving the goal posts" as this process is necessary to determine a subject's notability. Regardless of my initial argument, the argument @Duffbeerforme raised is an important one because you used the record label criteria as the claim to notability. If you cannot verify that he is on the empire record label, then you must use the other criteria specified in WP:SINGER.

In order to verify Icetre as being on the EMPIRE record label you must provide a verifiable source and all of the sources you have provided are questionable or self-published at best.
Furthermore, this is not personal. This is simply a discussion to determine if an article should remain on Wikipedia based on the notability guidelines agreed upon by consensus. I'm sorry if my comments have appeared as personal attacks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After taking time to rebuild I wanted to bring up a few things
If the subject signs to EMPIRE, creates a record label while on EMPIRE, does that technically mean that he is still on EMPIRE or does that mean he is no longer on EMPIRE? and does this mean the subject's created record label is under EMPIRE?

If the answer is "yes he is still technically on EMPIRE" and that "yes it means the subject's created record label is under EMPIRE" then all releases under the subject's created record label that was created under EMPIRE would technically still be released under EMPIRE. It could not be released solely on the subject's created record label because it was specifically created whilst the subject was already under EMPIRE.

It's a bit of a tricky situation in the first place from what I've gathered: The subject releases music on the EMPIRE record label through the record label they created while on the EMPIRE record label but the subject's releases say the subject's record label name. If the subject wanted to solely have "EMPIRE" as the record label name on Apple and Spotify then the subject would have to unfortunately cancel out their created record label and have it wiped from the EMPIRE system. On Youtube it says "EMPIRE (On behalf of Blazington Music Group" because it is still on the EMPIRE record label but they included the subject's record label for posterity. Even I can see possible licensing issues if it only said EMPIRE instead of the subject's record label included.

If the answer is yes to the question of if the subject created a record label under EMPIRE is that record label is still under EMPIRE then I follow up with this next piece of evidence from SoundExchange. Here is the definition: SoundExchange is an American non-profit collective rights management organization founded in 2003. It is the sole organization designated by the U.S. Congress to collect and distribute digital performance royalties for sound recordings. It pays featured and non-featured artists and master rights owners for the non-interactive use of sound recordings under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 112 and 17 U.S.C. § 114.

SoundExchange is a verifiable source from the U.S. Congress and is not self published. You mentioned my sources were questionable or self published at best. The definition: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process... SoundExchange has a very high reputation for checking proper facts (for example they may say "does this artist's song belong to this artist? and then do their fact checking from there". SoundExchange has very meaningful editorial oversight with no conflict of interest as the U.S. Congress would be in extreme violation of such things. SoundExchange does not rely on promotional content, extremist content, heavily unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Predatory open access does not apply in this case.

SoundExchange has the subject's music and data available here. The three albums in question are "Pisces Gold 2.0", "28", and "Slime To Tha 5", all information including Artist, Title, Version, Year, Duration, ISRC, Release, Release Label, Release Date, Release Artist, and UPC are displayed once the "Show Releases" switch is toggled on.

If the answer is yes to the question of if the subject created a record label under EMPIRE is that record label is still under EMPIRE then I say that SoundExchange is a verifiable source and non self published source showing that the two or more album releases by the subject were under EMPIRE and the subject meets Guideline #5.

The ISRC search feature of SoundExchange is still apart of the SoundExchange website.

Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and I wanted to add a little bit more context to my first question.
If the subject signs to EMPIRE, granted to create a record label while on EMPIRE and does not leave EMPIRE and continues releasing music, does that mean that he is still on EMPIRE when he releases music or does that mean he is no longer on EMPIRE when he releases music?

If EMPIRE allows someone to create a record label under EMPIRE does that mean the subject's record label's releases are ultimately under EMPIRE since the subject's record label is under EMPIRE and the subject themselves are under EMPIRE?

Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include the SoundExchange link I mentioned earlier. Here it is:

https://isrc.soundexchange.com/?tab=%22advanced%22&artistName=%22icetre%22&fileType=%22all+file+types%22&showReleases=true Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the connections behind this is that SoundExchange shows the albums were in fact from Blazington Music Group and it shows the dates when they were released. YouTube shows the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE as their licensing data shows on the videos. Manipulation of licensing data is not able to be done even when uploading videos to Youtube. Licensing data is handled by Youtube and other parties involved (EMPIRE in this case). I checked and there is the subject's Youtube and there is a topic version of the Youtube. The licensing data displays on the subject's Youtube information but since licensing data cannot be manipulated then that does not go against a conflict of interest nor is licensing data "self published". The licensing information is in an entirely separate section that is unable to be edited by the general public. In this case only Youtube and EMPIRE have access.

I am merely using Youtube as extension of proof between the two. In this case, Licensing data should count to prove the connection. If the president comes out with an official statement on Youtube, does Youtube's reputation enough to say that the video is "invalid"? Since licensing data is across multiple sites it would be silly to say it doesn't count on Youtube but counts on Apple Music.

I have an idea, I want you to answer a question for me, 100% without a doubt but if Blazington Music Group was not under EMPIRE then how could it possibly say "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group"

and mind you if it was distributed by Blazington Music Group then it would say "Distributed by Blazington Music Group" and if it was distributed by EMPIRE then it would say "Distributed by EMPIRE"

so can you 100% without a doubt say that EMPIRE and Blazington Music Group have no connection and can you 100% without a doubt explain why the licensing data says those two names together?

If "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group" is not a connection to EMPIRE then I don't know what is. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SoundExchange acts as the reliable source and Youtube acts as the supporting evidence. Licensing data cannot be manipulated and UPC and ISRC codes. so the supporting evidence should still count and not be thrown out so it can support the claim that Blazington Music Group has the connection to EMPIRE.

"EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group" shows a direct connection and since the licensing data is in a section that cannot be manipulated and is directly supplied by Youtube, Blazington Music Group, and EMPIRE themselves, It should be counted as legitimate. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last comment here. I don't believe the youtube video description is enough justification that this musician is on the record label, and thus the notability guidelines aren't met in my opinion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I am uploading a video to Flickr to cite. The subject's manager got ahold of me via email and sent a screen recording from inside the subject's login information for the EMPIRE database. You will be able to see everything from there and it will be indisputable. I have seen the recording and it is transparent and shows the direct connection. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the information provided was enough but please see this last piece of evidence before you make your decision. It is a 4 minute video in order to see everything for what is. It is more than enough to satisfy any doubt that it Blazington Music Group is connected to EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the video that was emailed to mehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360805218/in/photostream/lightbox/

This is undeniable proof. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
replying to my own comment but was informed that they used the subject's login information in order for it to display this information on the EMPIRE website. I don't know what that all meant in terms of if it was necessary or not but from what the video showed anyone can make a clear connection to Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was emailed this over by the manager as well its the EMPIRE Content Team confirming the 3 releases from the subject were released on EMPIRE. They had requested the subject contact them about this matter but I wasn't made aware of this until their manager informed me. I did not want to have to go to these lengths to prove the connection but it was good to do. Between the video and this photo its undeniable proof and that the nomination should be withdrawn and that the subject can keep their stub article.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360664731/

I was informed me that nothing was blacked out that way there was no accusations of fakes or digital imagery. It appears it was sent to the subject. I would imagine this whole matter has made the EMPIRE team question what is going on so with the video and the photo I think it all goes under Guideline #5 and that the subject can keep their stub article. @Philipnelson99

* I do not own any copyright to these videos or photos these are not products of mine they are used with permission merely for wikipedia purposes* Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per discussion { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A connection has been made between record labels. The nomination meets Guideline #5 and the afd will be withdrawn soon. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing the AfD. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I effectively proved the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. That was what you asked for and that was what was delivered. I thought you were not moving the goal post? Did you watch the video and see the photo? The subject meets Guideline #5 and should be granted the stub article. Mind you this is only a stub article we are talking about. You said there is a process to this, well any and all processes include being fair and I was able to prove there was the link between the two. By not removing the afd after this evidence has been shown this shows me that you are moving the goal post.

Why are you not being fair? Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

video evidence:https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360805218/in/photostream/lightbox/

photo evidence:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360664731/ Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refer you to Duffbeerforme's first comment on this AfD. It's pretty clear that the albums are being distributed by EMPIRE distribution. That doesn't mean the subject was signed to the record label. That's the absolute last thing I'm saying here. I don't like to be accused of being unfair. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue he was saying is that EMPIRE isn't a real record label, it had nothing to do with whether the subject's work was distributed by EMPIRE, you are moving the goalpost and being unfair.

Duffbeerforme's first comment:

Delete. Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]

I already proved EMPIRE was a record label, why are you going in a loop? You asked for a clear connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE and I proved there was and now you are saying its pretty clear the albums are being distributed by EMPIRE distribution. That is taking it in a complete opposite lane.

The issue is whether the albums are ON EMPIRE and I already established that EMPIRE was a real record label and then I established that the releases were on EMPIRE and then I established that the subject was on EMPIRE and then I established the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. You are being very unfair.

We need others to chime in on this. I have provided everything you asked and you are moving the goal post. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunkytrap34 A bit of advice meant in good faith: I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process given the number of your replies. Whoever chooses to close this AFD will see your responses so repeatedly making them normally are not valuable and may work against the position you're arguing for. AFDs are normally allowed to run 7 days; at which point an uninvolved, experienced editor will close this discussion (or relist it for further discussion if that seems fruitful). Skynxnex (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I do not want to sound impartial but many of my replies are either providing evidence that the nominator asks for or replying back to the nominator about them saying the evidence is not sufficient enough. I could have chopped down those replies but I felt as if the evidence needed explanation even though the nominator repeatedly turned down all shown pieces of evidence.

I genuinely feel I provided enough evidence that the subject meets Guideline #5 which states:

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you very much for letting me know that. This process has been an ordeal with countless amount of research. I really thought the nominator and me had an understanding at first. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination on the belief that Icetre was signed to EMPIRE records. I retracted it after Duffbeerhome pointed out that Icetre was merely being distributed on the EMPIRE distribution side of the company. This wasn't meant to attack or disparage you. This is how an AfD process works. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No he did not. What he said was "Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there." He did not say anything about the subject being distributed on the EMPIRE side. Please cite where he said that because I cannot find it. and further more Guideline #5 says two or more albums released on "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." and the wikipedia for EMPIRE says "Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE) is an American distribution company and record label founded in 2010 by Ghazi Shami."

The entire name is "Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE). It clearly says its stylized as EMPIRE but it is not simple EMPIRE Distribution. Obviously that title would be too long for a wikipedia name. This is what the nominator does not understand is that EMPIRE handles all 3, not just one separate from the other, its all the EMPIRE. The nominator is "splitting hairs" on whether the releases were on EMPIRE Records or on EMPIRE Distribution when in reality its all the same thing coupled together into one record label and that's exactly why it says: ""Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE). Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue we are dealing with:

The nominator said: "I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case."

so I sent them a video and photo confirming the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE from the official EMPIRE website. UPC codes and images confirm the connections between the two.

After I posted the evidence they simply said "I am not withdrawing the afd". The nominator is ignoring the connection, is refusing to accept Guideline #5, and will not withdraw the afd. They are talking about the release of the albums but in earlier conversations I have already proved my case legitimate so the nominator is refusing to remove the afd based on them "moving the goal post". I talked to the nominator about this and they said they are:

fair
not moving the goal post
not taking it personal

but I am not seeing that here. I am speaking from my perspective. We need others to read through this and chime in. I have proven over 5-6 claims from the nominator and I feel like the nominator is going in a different direction even when I proved their claim down to a T. I feel like this is sabotage. I do not understand why the nominator is being this way. Each time I prove evidence then there is another claim and once I had provided the indisputable evidence then the nominator takes it a few claims back and speaks on the legitimacy of the albums when i had already proven the legitimacy.

This nominator is on a rampage and i do not understand why this nominator is being this way. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to comment a lot but I'll add a few points:

The nominator cannot withdraw this AFD at this point (and could not as soon as any one voted delete)
As WP:BLUDGEON explains, once you've explained your rebuttal to a specific point, unless someone else asks you a question, assume the closer will read, and assess, your comments against other user's comments.

I am very confused by the provenance of the video and picture in the Flickr account you linked to. They're not a reliable source or verifiable. The email content and the video to my eye doesn't prove that Icetre is "signed" to a label; everything, to me, seems consistent with sort of B2B business relationship where someone is paying Empire some fee to manage uploading and licensing.

And even assuming Icetre did meet WP:SINGER#5, that doesn't automatically make him WP:NOTEABLE and since WP:BLP applies, even if WP:NOTABLE if there aren't sufficient WP:RELIABLESOURCES, we can't have an article. In short, there need to be reliable, independent sources (I don't see any, at best there's one or two extremely marginal sources). If you want this article kept, it'd be best on focusing finding and providing the best sources available, about Icetre, that haven't been presented or in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay I wasn't sure but okay to both points. Sorry for the late responses.

So the nominator had denied evidence and said "In order to verify Icetre as being on the EMPIRE record label you must provide a verifiable source and all of the sources you have provided are questionable or self-published at best" so I provided a verifiable source SoundExchange a non profit organization by the U.S. Congress, and showed that the subject's albums were released on Blazington Music Group and that UPC and ISRC codes could be used to check against any database including EMPIRE's.

So then the nominator says "I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case."

So right there he is asking for a reliable source that says this is the case and he is asking for a connection between EMPIRE and Blazington Music Group.

I provided the video that is within the EMPIRE database and the image as these are only meant to prove my point that Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE are connected and that the information on SoundExchange is reliable. He did not say that SoundExchange did not count he only wanted proof of connection so that's where the videos and images come from. I merely uploaded those to that site I am not using Flickr as a reputable site, that would be silly.

Labels.empi.re bring you right up to the EMPIRE backstage login.

You say there is no proof but here is cited information of the subject when the subject signed with EMPIRE back in 2014

https://www.facebook.com/share/6WfQF1A6G77FJqLk/?mibextid=Zmo65R

The nominator requested the subject be apart of the "roster" but go to https://store.empi.re/pages/artist-roster you'll see that there is no artists there but the subject had screenshotted years ago the roster list when it was still made available:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=777517018967656&set=a.446109862108375&type=3&mibextid=Zmo65R

Now I can't explain why the list is gone but just because EMPIRE decided to remove the roster list that does not mean that the subject is "suddenly" off of the label and if that was true that would mean there is no more artists with EMPIRE and that would be silly to think that just because it shows no artists on their roster.

I mentioned the subject has their own record label that they created specifically underneath EMPIRE. It was within their contract otherwise it couldn't just "appear", those situations require paperwork behind it. The screenshot on the subject's Facebook clearly shows the email was designated specifically towards the subject. I mentioned also that if they wanted "EMPIRE" to be on the label list then the subject would have to cancel their record label's contract and all of that would be extreme for a Wikipedia community to want the subject to do that just for posterity. This is why I proved the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE.

You say there needs to be sources but what are we basing the sourcing off of? Guideline #5 on The two or more albums that were released on EMPIRE or are we basing the sourcing off of documentation that the subject is on EMPIRE? I cannot simply tell the subject these things but you basically saying that there needs to be more articles that say point blank "the subject is with EMPIRE"? because if that is what you are saying then that's exactly why I am trying to get a stub article approved so more information can be done. Its kind of like job experience, the job's used to train you on site but told you to have some skills to bring but now a days job experience they want you to have 5 years experience before hand....a stub article is the former. The things you all are saying is great information on how to expand a stub article and the fact that you are all doing the research and fact checking the information I give its basically already a stub article on its way for expansion but it just got jumbled up in a Afd.

Stub wikipedia defintion: A stub is an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion. Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, lists, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs.

So we can all at least agree that the subject's stub article provides some useful information and is capable of expansion? I do not mind doing more extensive research but I am only pleading for the stub article to remain so the community can help me expand on it.

Does that make sense?

There are many sources about the subject and their music but if there needs to be more sources about the subject being with EMPIRE then please consider allowing the subject to keep their stub article while expansion and research is done. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP is policy and it requires strong sourcing. I'm not seeing anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im withdrawing the article. Wikipedia editors involved are unreliable, biased, unfriendly, and moving the goal posts. You all have made this a terrible and unfriendly experience AND ALL FOR JUST A STUB ARTICLE. The editors have changed my entire views on Wikipedia I did not think this would be such a terrible experience. They have been nothing but unfriendly, biased, and they were not afraid to move the goal post when they were shown up with evidence. This the last comment I will be making here. Can someone please remove the subject's page so I am not getting notifications from you guys anymore? Thank you and I hope you all have a bad day! @Duffbeerforme@Jjj1238@Philipnelson99@Shellwood@Skynxnex@TimothyBlue@Wcquidditch Bunkytrap34 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page author blanked the page, presumably because they were unhappy with the AfD. I think it's best to let this process play out before requesting speedy deletion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I request a speedy deletion. I am uninterested in this and do not wish to partake in it any longer. You all have made this a terrible experience and I am not going to deal with it any longer. The subject will be fine without a Wikipedia and at this point a Wikipedia or a stub article is not worth all of this drama. Goal post moving is one thing but continuous Goal post moving? id rather would opt out of the game then continue playing with cheaters. I request a speedy deletion. My life does not revolve around Wikipedia so this will be the last comment I make on here. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bunkytrap34: I would rather not get into this discussion, but I think you are being very immature in regards to this discussion. No goal posts were moved, maybe you just misunderstood the criteria or had it poorly explained to you. As Skynxnex tried to explain to you, meeting #5 alone does not guarantee an individual will receive an article. Assuming he does meet notability guidelines, he also needs to have reliable sources and significant coverage that warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. I have seen none of this coverage for Icetre that would warrant an article even if #5 is met. And further, I have still yet to see proof that #5 has been met. From everything I've looked at, the sourcing you are attempting to use to claim Icetre is signed to the EMPIRE record label instead points to a distribution deal, also I'm seeing a lot of failures of WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:OR, plus pretty much none of this is coming from reliable sources overall. I urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before you decide to undertake major editing projects such as creating an entire article. It should be obvious that a screenshot on Facebook of a website cannot be considered a reliable source for information on Wikipedia. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:56, 29 November 2023 (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.