Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Anthony

Add links
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 keep‎. My only comment is that a future AFD might be considered in a few months' time to see if coverage is sustained or whether this could be considered a case for WP:BLP1E. But do not immediately renominate this article for AFD2 if you don't care for this closure, please, we don't need an automatic repeat of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Anthony

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Oliver Anthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of sustained notability (WP:SUSTAINED) and lack of evidence of wide public acclaim, even within his subfield of country music, other than that a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.") and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper". Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The individual in question has the #1 country song on iTunes, almost half a million Instagram followers, and almost 725k TikTok followers, so this artist is past the point of being “gamed by a few buying many copies each”. This page would be a relevant add, as any chart-topping artist should have a Wikipedia page for reference. I doubt anyone could generate this much buzz, gain this many new followers, and have a #1 hit on iTunes erroneously. What a coincidence that all would have to be. AlexJMPR (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
iTunes ranking does not matter. See WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Neither do any of those others, which are also gameable. Do you have something that isn't gameable like concert attendance figures? He's had a concert. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO -
Meets #1:
https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail is not a reliable source (WP:DAILYMAIL) and shouldn't be used here or in the article.
#1 isn't met as the Billboard article is the only one that has him as half of the topic of the article rather than just background information about the sole stated topic of the other articles, which is one of his songs. That might support the notability of the Rich Men North of Richmond article. They don't support his being notable enough to have his own article separate from the song article, if that's the only thing they've seen fit to write articles about.
It should also be noted that the reason for not redirecting the article to Rich Men North of Richmond was the invalid criteria proposed by the person who closed that discussion of "Right now Oliver Anthony has the top 3 on iTunes all genres, half of the top 10, half of the top 14 and 15 of the top 50. Clearly he’s much more than the song itself, although that also deserves an article. These stats also mean that it’s absurd to suggest, even for a moment, that he’s not notable enough for an article, so I deleted that hatnote." and "There is a separate article for the song, and it’s fairly obvious that this man is not just going to be famous, he is already. It’s time this discussion was closed."
That's invalid because of WP:SUSTAINED as all these events have happened within the past half-week and his fame will last a very short time for all anyone knows (which isn't sufficient to support an article about the artist), use of iTunes as a WP:SINGLEVENDOR, irrelevant psychic predictions of his future fame, and the actual evidence of his notability that doesn't quite meet WP:MUSICBIO being one article by Billboard. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You are obviously not aligned with his political ideology and this is the sole purpose of you're attempt to have the page removed. You have nothing better to do with your time. 211.170.54.36 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, we don't use political ideology when deciding if a source is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your biases could not be more obvious if you wore them on a t-shirt. Keep. 2601:3C2:8281:9DD0:9C72:D7C4:C8C3:74E3 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Size Large please. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO -
Meets #1:
https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a bit of a waste to have to have to point out that I responded to a comment that seems to be quite similar to this above. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reply on this thread was to CJ-Moki. AlexJMPR (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability seems well supported by a variety of reliable secondary sources (Rolling Stone, Daily News, NBC News, Colorado Springs Gazette) in the article and here (some sources here don't appear in the article, and should be added. Not it!). signed, Willondon (talk)
Those sources are about one of his songs, which already has an article at Rich Men North of Richmond. While I agree that these may support the notability for that article, they aren't about the artist, mentioning him solely in service of talking about the song.
The exception is that the Colorado Springs Gazette's republishing of a Washington Examiner article also "simply report[s] performance dates" and stats that fail WP:SINGLEVENDOR in addition to talking about the song, which don't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news articles mentioned on this discussion page and the wiki article discuss the artist and his background, hence why the claims made in the wiki article are justly backed up and cited. You do not get to gatekeep what qualifies as relevant information as it relates to notability within an article. These articles all attest to his notability, with millions of views across many popular streaming platforms; his notability is real and you will loose on denying it. Joemama46 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG and SIGCOV per examples above, just because he is new does not mean he is not notable. At this rate, he will continue to gain more notability soon enough as well and likely remain relevant for long enough to meet WP:SUSTAINED, so at most I would say to at least move to a draft for the time being until the article is expanded more with the soufces listed above. Deletion is pointless this early on when he will almost inevitably clearly meet notability standards soon enough. Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Rolling Stone [1] is an ok-ish source, and Billboard [2] is about half a source. We'd need one more solid ref to keep this, but I can't find one. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It's reasonable to expect he will meet WP:SUSTAINED, but he's not there yet. There is no shortage of outlets covering him at the moment, including The A.V. Club, NBC News, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, so shortage of reliable sources is not the issue. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to the article existing once notability (of the artist, not just the one song) is met. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evidence to suggest he won't remain notable. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have sufficient notability supported by references such as https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/rich-men-north-richmond-viral-conservative-anthem-rcna99698 which just published today and others within the last week. - Indefensible (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, read several articles on him and this song today in NBC, FOX and Axois. Also saw him as a headline on Fox News probably 3 times today, each dedicating several minutes of commentary. 184.14.104.254 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please KEEP this article, as there is a lot of information and interest available about this singer. Julieprus (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify This fellow has been newsworthy for the past couple of weeks, the article needs more time and attention out of the spotlight to craft a well-sourced, balanced article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You better not delete this man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.3.53 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - His "notability" is heavily astroturfed. Which is sort of a weird paradox as far as Wikipedia goes - Wikipedia shouldn't be used as part of an astroturfing campaign, but if that astroturfing campaign is successful, well, they're actually notable now and should get an article. I am not convinced that this one will stick. Delete for now, but it can come back if it is actually notable later. Right now it just reads like a promotional blurb. HeroofTime55 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point the evidence overwhelmingly shows his going viral was fueled by millions of individuals viewing his content causing social algorithms to show his song to more and more. But even if it was an astroturf job paid for by someone wouldn’t you just make his page with that context ? 2600:1700:78BC:10:C5A5:9945:DC7F:D537 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be original research to put that in the article without it being in a reliable external source, so no, it wouldn't just be put in the article. People have done deep dives on this guy, who literally came out of nowhere overnight, and it has every appearance of an (in this case, far right) astroturf job - people manipulating algorithms to exploit certain technology platforms to trick them into thinking it's going viral, until it finally does. For example, the "#1 on iTunes" thing that keeps getting repeated. But there's no real reach on any other platforms to that degree (such as Spotify). Strongly indicative of astroturfing targeting a platform with low standards for weeding out fake usage.
    There's a lot more to the picture, buried a little bit under the surface but not painting a pretty picture, that leads me to hypothesize that this is going to be a "flash in the pan" that people move on from rather quickly. If that turns out true, then there isn't any notability, same as now, when we don't have great sources. If it goes beyond that, then it attains actual notability, and we can go ahead and create the article again, that isn't a problem. But I think leaving it up in the meantime even as a draft is problematic in the context of astroturfing. HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you should mention Spotify, Hero, since Variety have just reported "Anthony’s breakout tune has cracked the top 10 on a much more indicative one, Spotify’s daily USA Top 50." [3] Boscaswell talk 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have anything to actually back up the claim that his viral fame is astroturfed? You cant just give vague reasonings like this, while ironically calling on others to rely on reliable external sources. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's PROMO if we support astroturfing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of whether or not the astroturfing is successful, but whether or not that astroturfing makes him notable. Even if he is an industry plant, the considerable controversy around Oliver Anthony and his music has made knowledge about him part of the public interest. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge and that includes knowledge of people we find objectionable. Therefore we must keep this article. Flameoguy (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the one who originally tagged the article over concerns of the subject's notability, but I chose not to take to it to an AfD discussion, because as I see it, it will be a waste of time and effort for everyone because the issue is likely to be only temporary. It's true he is now only known for a single song, but iTunes charts show 3 of his songs occupies the top 3 positions, 9 in the top 20, 17 in the top 50. There is also an EP in the album chart. When the Billboard charts come out next week, the situation will likely be different. We see that a tour has been announced, and an album is also likely with notable artists willing to help him on that. While WP:SUSTAINED says that if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual, the indications are that he is likely NOT to stay low-profile. I therefore don't see WP:SUSTAINED as a likely problem. I think the nominator is also wrong in suggesting that the song rose in the chart because it somehow has been "gamed" (or the suggestions of astroturfing by someone else), I've been an observer of the charts (iTunes, Billboard, etc.) for a long time, and the pattern of his charting songs we are seeing now is typical of when someone suddenly comes into focus in the news (e.g. when an artist dies), but also appears to be longer-lasting as far as iTunes is concerned. I do think this is part of something unusual that is happening in right-wing socio-cultural sphere, a sequence of events including the Bud Light boycott, the Sound of Freedom film, Jason Aldean's "Try That in a Small Town", and as such he will likely be the subject of commentary in the future. Hzh (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that didn't take long, the commentary on the significance of Oliver Anthony's song together with the Sound of Freedom film and "Try That in a Small Town" from The Washington Post. Hzh (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Given the majority of reliable sources and significant coverage is about his song rather than him, and that there is basically no coverage prior to August 13, 2023, this seems to me like a clear case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:TOOSOON. If he's going to be notable in about a week, as some here are arguing, then create the article on him in about a week (or whenever it's clear the topic is notable). ––FormalDude (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would just be a pointless exercise, since this discussion may not close for at least a week, by which time the situation may be different. I would not have created the article, but, once it's been created, leave it, then just wait and see. The coverage of the song has now spread outside of right-wing press internationally, it's almost guaranteed that there there will be further coverage of the person himself. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not a fan of his schtick or the morons who started worshipping him last week, but as an attempted ethical voter, my conclusion is that the article is viable. He has been profiled by Rolling Stone and Billboard among others, so he absolutely has reliable coverage as a musician. And if he returns to obscurity next week (cross your fingers), the article will still be viable under WP:NTEMP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there was a genuine concern about long term notability this could have been nominated for deletion next week, but given how much coverage this person has received, this is an easy keep decision. Nemov (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is significant coverage of Anthony himself, as well as the song, and of course his other songs are now receiving attention. Even if he ends up being a one-hit wonder, he will still be notable. StAnselm (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rich Men North of Richmond. This is the sort of flash-in-the-pan temporary notability that WP:BLP1E was written to cover, especially as it's painfully obvious how much Anthony's notability has been astroturfed. Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLP1E, the required conditions are clearly not all met in this scenario. It has already been well established, both in references shared to this discussion page and the main article page, that Oliver Anthony is actively being covered as a separate and specific individual alongside his viral artistic work in the mainstream media, disqualifying any rationale supporting a merge or redirect under this clause. This coverage is not just for one the release of a single song but also for his many other songs currently on multiple streaming platform's charts. Additionally, his impromptu performance with multi-grammy award winner Jamey Johnson this past weekend in NC also received widespread attention in the media. Your insinuations really show your bias, consider opening your eyes; this is what real engagement looks like and time will prove you wrong on the subject of his notability. I am sorry you disagree with his work and newfound popularity, but attempting to suppress this article due to your evident bias' will not be tolerated. Joemama46 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Solid analysis, thank you. I came across this artist through an economics blog - I’ll add the reference :) Joseph stewart (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's just as much coverage of that guy who did that eurodance parody song that's gone viral this month too. Doesn't mean he's independently notable of the song. The song is notable, but Anthony is not independent of the song. And like Planet of the Bass, people are going to forget about Industry Plant #4380 in two weeks. Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please spare us of this utter ridiculousness and factually fallacy; the example has nowhere near the broad scope of media coverage or quality thereof that Oliver Anthony has and is continuing to received both as an orgin story and for the numerous examples of viral work topping the music charts. Your doubling down of unjust insinuations further indicates your bias as someone else already stated, it saddens me to see this is what Wikipedia has turned into. 173.219.88.194 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really don't want people to hear about Oliver Anthony huh? 78.80.44.84 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. If there aren't enough news sources to let people know about him, he's not notable enough to have an article. If there are enough news sources, the article will be kept. Either way, letting people hear about him in the sense of publicizing him isn't the job of Wikipedia. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Absolutly no reason to remove the article as far as I see it. Sure he is a minor figure with relatively small fame from exposure on the internet, but I dont see how this would at all warrant a deletion due to some rule wikipedia has. The criticism laid out in the original. The point about "a few talking heads" from conservative news trying to advertise for him is 100% not true. His music video on youtube blew up and became a viral hit, THEN news outlets (left leaning, right leaning, and moderate) from Fox News to NBC covered the story.
Aside from the political angle, hes a musician and he has gained a lot of notability from that. Hes been covered by Billboard and Rolling Stones in articles and has gotten notable recognition from people within the country music world. Both John Rich and Jamey Johnson have spoken about collaborating with him since his video came out.
"and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper"."
And this is just you making up a scenario without even bothering to attempt to back it up. No reason to take this article down. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how this works. It needs to be proven that he is notable, not that he isn't notable. The articles I've seen so far, except for one, have been primarily about his song, not about him, because it's his song that's notable, not him. That definitely supports keeping the article about the song, but not the article about him personally. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made several points in your original post that hold no real water to them but are pure speculation. Either way its been 10 days still and articles are still being written about him and his song in major publication. Even across the pond his song is topping the charts and there is a BBC article about him. Almost all the articles are about both Oliver Anthony and "Rich Men North of Richmond"Friedbyrd (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His biographical record is sourced to The Oklahoman, Variety, Taste of Country, the Los Angeles Times, KFDI-FM in Kansas (of all places), American Songwriter, and Billboard, among others. We go by the sources, don’t we? When the media from the East to the West Coast is interested in the biography of the singer at the top of both Spotify and iTunes, per here, he clearly meets WP:NBLP. XavierItzm (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. He clearly meets the criteria of having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Evans1982 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete this seems accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8901:53F0:B801:2E15:7694:5509 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, Merge to Rich Men North of Richmond, as this is the only coverage in relation to him for the most part. If he gets more viral singles later on, I might change my mind, but I am not a crystal ball and cannot predict that. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to learn more about Oliver Anthony after hearing his song, "Rich Men North of Richmond." The first place I looked was Wikipedia. Shocked to see they were considering deleting the entry. I understand you all may have rules about what stays and what goes. But for him to have the number one song on iTunes, it seems relevant that he would have an entry on here. If his info wasn't on Wikipedia, I'd just go to another source which I'm fine to do. No skin off my nose. 170.190.198.106 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow iTunes sales counts as evidence of notability (see WP:SINGLEVENDOR). They can be gamed by a few people buying a bunch of copies. Instead, Wikipedia looks for more reliable indicators of notability. His song has received some coverage by some reputable news organizations, so the song is probably notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but the man might not be. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pretty clearly has sufficient coverage to establish notability at this point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. As mentioned above (and as should be understandable) the only real noteworthiness of the article revolves around Rich Men North of Richmond which -- though popular *now* -- is not guaranteed to *always* be popular, nor is Oliver Anthony *guaranteed* to release further music that resonates with an audience on a similar scale. IF (not WHEN, as some have suggested) the man behind the song becomes noteworthy enough to warrant something more in-depth that requires more scouring than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry can manage with a quick Google search (which would then require compiling into an article here about the man), THEN is the time to be discussing another article for the man behind the song rather than simply having an article to cover the song itself.176.10.146.192 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth observing that 'seven’ of Anthony’s songs sat at the top of iTunes and one, “Ain’t Gotta Dollar” reached No. 1 on Spotify’s Viral 50 chart, as documented in the article. Therefore any arguments about just one song are pretty ignorant at this point.XavierItzm (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven of Anthony's songs are sitting at the top of iTunes now having ridden in on the virality of "Rich Men North of Richmond". Have they been in the charts for very long prior to the success of "Rich Men North of Richmond"? Did they chart at all prior to the viral hit? And will they stay relevant or popular once the hype for "Rich Men North of Richmond" dies down? I apologize if I struck a nerve with anyone about my perspective, but -- last I checked -- this was still an open forum where users could voice their opinions. And seeing users stumbling over themselves to both point at the current popularity of "Rich Men North of Richmond" as evidence that he will stay relevant (something that Anthony has seemingly stated that he had no interest in, nor desire for, in releasing "Rich Men North of Richmond") while simultaneously swarming to defend the popularity of someone whose existence was completely unknown to them a month ago seems -- to me -- a little suspect. 176.10.146.192 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do explain how the massive amount of coverage about him not just the song and other successful songs of his don't warrant notability already. Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly view the reply to the comment above this one. Thank you very much and have a good day. 176.10.146.192 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and per the number of sources documenting him X-Editor (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah! It says in Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process under Competence that someone nominating an article for deletion is expected to have a reasonable degree of competence. But in this case, the nominator has made a total of 144 edits. That doesn’t strike me as being anything near to approaching the level of experience required to show competence.
Yet all of the above discussion has resulted from this one inexperienced editor taking it upon his or herself to nominate the article for deletion. Which resulted in the article itself being hit with a massive hatnote about being nominated for deletion.
Conclusion: this discussion merits nothing less than a very Speedy closure. The current situation is an absurdity. Must it be strung out any further? Boscaswell talk 02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations done in good faith with a valid rationale should not be speedily closed because the nominator is new or "inexperienced". If it's clear the discussion is headed nowhere productive (as it kinda seems here), it may be a WP:SNOW close. (See also WP:SK.) SWinxy (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been all over the place from the very beginning, even the original user who marked the article for nomination of deletion under the rationale of WP:SUSTAINED recanted their claims about deletion while expressing regret over wishing they had not marked the article to begin with. Open and shut, Speedy Keep. 173.219.88.194 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I definitely have not expressed regret about that, and I'm quite fine with my having marked the article for a discussion about deletion. The only thing I've said in line with that is that I'm fine with keeping the article if, over the next few weeks, he meets Wikipedia's notability standards. If that happens, that's fine. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is asinine to consider this article for deletion. If nothing else, this is a one-hit wonder, worthy of trivia status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawfus (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. When phenomena such as this happen, there can be valid NOTNEWS concerns to be considered. After all, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to cover everything that is at least vaguely memetic for a brief period. However, I believe that the articles for both Oliver Anthony himself and his "Rich Men North of Richmond" song are quality articles worthy of staying here. Anthony and his songs have enough coverage, notability, and cultural influence to not be deleted, and the Anthony page has a wide selection of sources, 30 citations in total, both local and national. The citations even supply the quotes of what is being cited, which is admirably more detail than I give when I usually cite. Meanwhile, the song's page has 19 citations that skew toward the national press, and even has a passage that dissects and analyzes the specific lyrics. These articles are beyond adequate and are very promising. The articles should be kept because, regardless of if his fame ends tomorrow or is sustained for decades, fact is that his chart success and the coverage about him and his music is prolific, diverse, and stratospheric enough for there to be, in my mind, no viable reason to delete the two articles related to him. The fact that he is not yet signed to any label noteworthy or otherwise, in reference to conventional notability standards for music, does not deter from my previous points.
I believe the nominator Chai T. Rex has brought in an unfortunate bias to his/her request, political and otherwise, and that "a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public" is a laughable and simplistic understatement beaming with a grumbling those dang conservatives type of hubris; while "a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music" is a baseless accusation that makes Anthony appear as an inorganic industry plant, which... goes completely against his ethos and why he rose to sudden stardom. How can someone be an industry plant if they are not even a part of the music industry, and even still might not yet be? How can such an explanation accommodate the fact that Anthony had never intended for himself as a musician to reach this level of fame, especially so quickly? Also, why does Rex use so much generalization and even, dare I say, conspiracy theorizing here?
Also, 64.85.217.35: your comment toward Lawfus is a personal attack and is unacceptable here. #64, please see your user talk page if you have not already. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per current news coverage. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 16:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A little over two hours ago, Anthony entered the UK Singles Chart, thereby satisfying WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Launchballer 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What in the world. --193.121.16.254 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of articles like this one on Wikipedia. The only reason this one is up for deletion is because of its "controversy." Let it stay, there's worse things out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.134.242 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the song is terrible and the guy himself seems unremarkable - but, objectively, he's a present figure now and probably will be for a while, so there's no reason to get rid of the article, especially because it would make the article on the song much more cluttered to include all this info. Also, if it did turn out he was an 'industry plant' (which I doubt even though his political fanbase is annoying), that wouldn't suddenly mean he shouldn't have an article RapescoStapler (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources covering him already for the article to meet the necessary requirements. These come from a wide spectrum of media outlets, casting into doubt the nominator's claim that his notability is being artificially pushed by a small segment. Additionally, many of these sources include a personal focus on him, and not just on the song "Rich Men North of Richmond," serving as the basis for information included in this article that fits better here than in the article for the song. MojaveSummit (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don’t understand why it should be deleted at all. He is an artist with multiple songs. There are far more esoteric articles on this platform. I believe that those wanting deletion are politically motivated and I’m a left leaner however I strongly believe in the first amendment. Stop trying to silence truth please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.127.18.45 (talk) 01:53, August 20, 2023 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rich Men North of Richmond. All sources talking about him are from a one-week long stretch of time, a clear and present example of WP:BIO1E: he's known for his song, Rich Men North of Richmond, and nothing else. BIO1E is an important exemption to GNG. SWinxy (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the discussion in the media has now moved on to Oliver Anthony's role in right-wing popular culture, e.g. New York Magazine, The Washington Post, so per WP:BIO1E if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. In any case, WP:BIO1E is not appropriate for someone like him, since he is likely not to become known for only one song, because a number of his songs may chart on Billboard (we will know in a few days), and he also has an EP, and there will likely be an album and a tour. It is almost certain that coverage of him will expand to other events. Even if he remains a one-hit wonder, articles for of one-hit wonder artists are common because of their significance in popular culture, especially if he can reach No. 1 in the charts. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if the ends up being a one-hit wonder like the Macarana or the Harlem Shake, it definitely has that zeitgeisty important feel to it. Jjazz76 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oliver_Anthony&oldid=1171740433"