Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAVBeast

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. joe decker^talk 01:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAVBeast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Virtually identical content to that recently speedied as promotion. A source has been added, but it is just a few seconds of an interview in a YouTube video of a local TV station's newscast from 5 years ago. Nowhere near enough to show notability and I have not found much else. Has not even released anything yet. Note that that also appears to be an autobiographical COI article given that the user is User:SAVBeast Meters (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the infobox states that SAVBeast has only been active since 2017. Way TOOSOON. Meters (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cross checking using variants of subject's real name. This search came up empty. Not even a mention at BBC.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nothing at Allmusic.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable musical artist. - TheMagnificentist 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this autobiography clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per my above comments.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an advertorially-toned WP:AUTOBIO, for a subject who has no credible WP:NMUSIC pass as of today. And since she's from Lloydminster, the one source cited here represents local coverage in her hometown media, which is not what it takes to pass WP:GNG (as I've said many times before, if one or two pieces of local coverage in someone's hometown media were all it took to get them into Wikipedia, then I would have an article and so would the woman a mile down the road from my parents who once found a pig on her front lawn.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform for emerging local talents — I wish her well, but the equation goes "make it and then you'll get a Wikipedia article", not "get a Wikipedia article to help you promote yourself while you try to make it". No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a proper notability claim, and the reliable sourcing required to support a neutral article about it, can be shown, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Anyone w/ fewer G Hits and less media coverage than I had at my heyday lacks significance.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I wasted our time by not just putting it up for speedy again. Oh well, we'll be able to use G4 in the future if needed. Meters (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not, and yes, we will.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an article gets speedied and then recreated a second time without improvement, it's generally better to escalate the recreation to AFD rather than just speedying again, so that we can add things like G4 speedy and/or WP:SALT to the toolkit in the event of another followup recreation. So no, nobody wasted anybody's time — this was the logical and expected response to a followup recreation. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Meters (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2017 (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.