Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 13

BADVOID (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page has been updated and meets criteria to be a page, following previous deletion logs that are stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notorious_CHRIS_(2nd_nomination), you can see that at this time the article was clearly not ready to be made, however after the artist Notorious Chris changed to "BADVOID", you can see in this draft for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BADVOID) that the article is ready to be moved into mainspace so this can be built. The coverage of this artist is no longer on a local scale but now on a global scale, just by a simple google search of the artist "BADVOID" you can find over 50+ highly reliable and reputable sources. BADVOID meets multiple criteria for Wikipedia notablity including: 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. 5. 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. 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. (https://twitter.com/7newscq/status/1041778920314494977?lang=en

Therefore all reason outlined that got the article deleted in the first place has been fixed and has been over the course of a few years now. GenesisGSE (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new article that is proposed in draft, is not similar at all in any way to the previously deleted versions of the BADVOID / Notorious CHRIS article so it is not a copy of the old article but it is a new written draft on the artist, including all new sources that are independent, respected and reliable. This show's all previous concerns of deletion has been fixed GenesisGSE (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at the article and am treating it like I would review a draft at our Articles for Creation - since there are a number of sources which all look specific to the music industry, which three or four sources do you think best demonstrate notability? (I'm not sure a Central Queensland local news story counts for #12, unfortunately.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since WP:MUSIC states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", this draft article appears to meet multiple criteria stated by WP:Music. In terms of sources I think I would say these 4/5 ^[1] , ^[2] , ^[3] , ^[4] , ^[5] , I would say all articles on the draft demonstrate notability as it is but I think those 5 may be the best. SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Both record labels recently released on also meets WP:Music 5. (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). As the roster has a highly successful list of top tier electronic music producers with multiple artists on each roster having their own Wikipedia page ^[6] , ^[7] , Borgore's record label Buygore & Yellow Claw's (DJs) record label Barong Family SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At least one of those is a sponsored post (disclosed by the publication), and I'm not certain how many of those sources you presented are reliable per our guidelines unfortunately, several at least look like self published blogs. I would not pass this if I saw this at articles for creation, but I would not decline it either. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the likes of these ^[8] , ^[9] , ^[10] , ^[11] , ^[12] , ^[13] , they are all highly reputable, independent & notable sources of the artist. I did not realise that one source you noted was a sponsored post but if you look at all the sources listed on the draft page for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BADVOID) at least 20+ of these are high reputable sources that meet the guidlines. This artist also meets more than one criteria for WP:MUSIC. Including WPMUSIC: 1, 5, 11 and arguably 12 (being featured on Australia's number one news broadcast Seven News ^[14]

SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, these are all industry publications, some are clearly sponsored, and the Seven News broadcast was regional. He may very well be notable based on these sources, but to me he's not clearly notable, since I'm not sure which industry sources are reliable and which aren't, and I have nothing more to add here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for replying and also your feedback SportingFlyer, I could only see one sponsored post that was brought to my attention from you but yes I agree with you in some aspects, the reputation of these sources may be unknown to someone who is not actively engaged in the music side of Wiki. GenesisGSE (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on the fence on this one. Looking at the article I don't see too much difference between this version and the earlier deleted ones, and A7/G4 deletion has been a constant issue here. In the spirit of AGF, I suppose we owe it to the article to try again, however I am uncertain if enough has changed between then and now to persuade the community to try again. On a related matter, in the event that the discussion comes own in favor of overturning and recreating the article, it should be noted that there are two other pages under which the artist's article was (re)created that were administratively locked and they should be released for redirection to wherever the article is to go (BADVOID I think?) so as to maintain consistency. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• thank you TomStar81 , I feel if the draft was to be changed much more it would completely strip the draft of any reputable information, however if the decision does get overturned the article would go to BADVOID. GenesisGSE (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I updated the draft and tried making a big difference between this one and the earlier deleted ones, you can view here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BADVOID). GenesisGSE (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so I took ten minutes to look at it. I began with the credible claim of significance, and yes, there is one: He rose to fame in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay". The source is here, and the problems with it are (1) it doesn't say he rose to fame, and (2) this is a source that charges people to promote their music (here). I could literally write a track myself on my computer, pay my subscription, and get a rave review from this source. I'm afraid I have not bothered to check any further. Leave as draft until this article consists only and entirely of statements that I can verify from properly independent sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a minute read wont do it justice? If you have not bothered to check any further how can you discredit any further references? although the website "EDMSauce" say's they do sponsored posts (which I was unaware of), the article on EDMSauce does not state anywhere that it is a sponsored post which im sure it would if it was? Even if we are to remove this article/source from consideration, if you look at the two other articles on this song alone and do some research you will know these are two of the highest reputable sources in dance music today coming from highly respected writers with a portfolio that stretches back. ^[15][16] Not disagreeing with you on your whole statement but I feel a thorough read is at least needed before making your mind up User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the draft and removed He rose to fame in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay". The draft now states He first gained international recognition in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay"., This cant be argued with multiple international sources on the song "I Would Never" alone. User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Promotional content on Wikipedia is being written so prolifically that we've learned to be efficient and effective in how we deal with it. This is why editors get as far as the first unsupported statement or the first blatantly unreliable source and then stop: volunteer time is our only scarce resource, and we do not have enough of it to give promotional content the "thorough read" that you request. You have not even removed the unreliable source that I mentioned, let alone taken the time to run the article through a spellchecker, so I shan't spend any further time on it.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall's approach is as charitable as you're going to get, and rightfully so. GenesisGSE If you're going to clean up the article for someone else to take a look at it, really clean it up, don't wait for the next volunteer to find the next egregiously inappropriate statement, fix it so the next editor finds nothing objectionable about it at all. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My apologies to User:S Marshall & Jclemens, I did not mean to come off rude when posting that, I will have the draft fixed up in the next 24 hours, once again I'm sorry for that! GenesisGSE (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft has been updated, all the sources should be good now. GenesisGSE (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly less bad. It now says that he "gained international recognition" based on this source; my problems with that are (1) the source doesn't say he gained international recognition, and (2) someone has added the title parameter to {{cite web}}, saying title=These Two Rising Artists Just Put Out A Massive Banger On Barong Family's New Compilation, when that's not the title and doesn't have anything to do with the content. In my opinion this draft, while improved, does still misrepresent the sources for promotional reasons.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of the first issue, that will be removed and for the second issue, I used Wiki's visual editor to add that source, when I added the link it automatically put that title in so my guess is that was the original title for the article? Im not sure, however I will fix that up now as well. User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notorious CHRIS (2nd nomination) to delete. It is not the role of DRV to judge a new draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with this discussion taking place here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. DRV doesn’t approve drafts, and if he boldly re-creates, DRV doesn’t AfD-proof it. This is just forum creep. It could just as easily been at WT:AfC. This is typical of a new account and the poor DRV instructions that you’re soft protecting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, the title is salted. Second, the page has been recently deleted, and restoring may be controversial. Those are two excellent reasons why this is a good forum for this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the WP:SALT. The draft is referenced bombed, and the first three sources are not independent, and so I personally do not accept the draft. However, the draft overcomes G4, and looks worth a debate at AfD, so I support deSALTing. Desalt. Allow any editor to mainspace the draft, and for it to be AfD-ed, but advise the proponent to follow the advice at WP:THREE SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is a hard case. The subject is probably notable, but not surely. There is a huge amount of promotion at play, and it is hard to find independent comment amongst the non independent comment. DRV is not the right place to do source analysis, even though we sometimes do. Maybe if WP:THREE sources were presented, but they have not been, and the draft is littered with non independent sources. Short of de-SALTing, DRV should not be perceivable as the gatekeeper for acceptance of the draft. The details of sources should be discussed on the draft talk page. I recommend use of the table at WP:SIRS. The subject is promoting and for profit, and should be held to WP:CORP standards of sourcing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]