Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STATIS

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STATIS

[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)

Article about a musician, that does not meet any of the WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG criteria. Of the two references, one is a blog, the other might be a reliable source, but isn't the in-depth coverage in multiple sources that is required. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--

One is a blog, yes. However it is an award blog that posts reviews of of music. It's highly revered in the music industry.

Likewise, the article meets the following Musical Notability requirements:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] The artist has been published multiple times, in a non-trival manner on reliable sources.

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The artist is placed at #2 on the Global and National charts on the dubstep charts Reverbnation charts, a leading musical platform in the USA.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The artist has had tracks picked up by international radio station, DashRadio, which boasts over 10M monthly listeners, and the Indie Radio Top 10 by Metro Media Group, in rotation.

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. The same as above.

BossManFergie (talk)BossManFergie —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides being autobiographical self-promotion, it's all just probably just WP:TOOSOON. The referenced reviews appear to be passing fluff pieces by non-professional writers, on sites which are probably of questionable reliability. What's left online that I can see seems to be mostly social media. If you want a Wikipedia article then you should continue to do the types of things that makes people who write for a living write about the things you do. If your Wikipedia article is the most in-depth coverage of you available, then you don't qualify yet for a Wikipedia article. GMG ^talk 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the self promotion claim - this was a case of messed up autocorrect on a mobile device. As the photographer who took the photo, it was supposed to read: "File uploaded was taken by me, BY myself. "

As for the article references, they are by extremely professional and vetted writers in the electronic music scene, both writing for award winning sources. Easily verifiable. --BossManFergie (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)BossManFergie[reply]

This isn't even credited to an author, and is written by someone who has yet to learn spelling and grammar. This is written by a 24 year-old freelance writer whose apparent claim to fame is being an aspiring poet with a book that was never actually printed, put out by a publisher that doesn't seem to exist. This is a generic webpage that doesn't even mention the subject. The next three "sources" are just tracks with no text whatsoever, which are not usable on an article about a living person. The next two sources also contain basically no text other than a listing.

These do not constitute sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and if we removed all of the poorly sourced content from the article, we'd have nothing left but a blank page. GMG ^talk 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, the age of a writer does NOT denote if they are a reputable and reliable source. Many great writers are freelance in today's news market. Both EDM Sauce and A&R Factory are reliable sources as can bee seen here. As for the links, they are all direct links to tracks on the charts for arguably the biggest Electronic Music Record Label, that states, on the track itself, it's highest ranking on the chart. --BossManFergie (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)BossManFergie[reply]

Delete, per WP:NMUSIC. There's no meat to this - A pair of SEO-fodder wordpress blogs does not a notable musician make. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous arguments, which sum up the deficiencies of sources and charts pretty nicely. Incredibly, the keep vote above unwittingly cites a source (this link) that if you take time to investigate (it's a site that exists to help artists promote their music), actually makes a good argument against keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2020 (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.