Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fescal

Fescal

Fescal (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)

Not notable in any way, looks like a vanity article. Shritwod (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Not completely un-notable, as I did find this review, but from what I can tell that is the only source available, so WP:NMUSIC is some way from being met. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, leaning toward keep - More research is warranted, and should preferably be delivered by individuals interested in the subject. The ABC references only indicate that the artist's songs were played on air, they don't qualify as "significant coverage" as defined by the general notability guideline. Of the other references, most of them look like blogs, which isn't entirely a nail in the coffin, as "Son of the Bronx" a TV blog is often used here. I've floated this article past WikiProject Music to see if they have any familiarity here. The ABC Radio sources indicate two songs were spun, but not that the songs were "in rotation", as would be one way to establish notability. UPDATE: per due diligence recommended by WP:BEFORE, I searched Google Books and Google news archive. I can't find any mention of the subject there. I'll do a little more looking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Related: We're trying to build an article on Fescal, but it's a pseudonym. The closest we get to the individual to establish any sort of notability, is the cryptic "David S". That's all fine and good, as we all love a touch of anonymity, but it's difficult to establish an individual's notability when we don't have all the facts. In contrast, Banksy is a pseudonym, but there is a stack of references as tall as Herman Munster to help support the individual's notability. A similar mystique surrounds the iconic Los Angeles icon Angelyne, though she too has a litany of press coverage far beyond what is cited in her article. Has the artist Fescal achieved any other fame via his real name, and might that help his notability? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned before that I found out his real name and searched for sources but couldn't find anything useful. (P.s. google news archive is being 'upgraded' and there are no archives at the moment, fortunately I have access to factiva). SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I found a primary source, which I think is fine for citing his real name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Keep. Though we all have our concerns about paid editing, I think there is enough coverage here to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. The German speakers at the language reference desk indicate the Beat article represents a favorable review. They don't vouch for whether or not the review is part of an advertising supplement or not, but assuming good faith on all involved, I think we should also assume that the print publication is okay. That, coupled with a few of the other resources seem to indicate the subject is notable for "[having] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Obviously, if any or all of those reviews were paid for by the promoters, that would unravel all of this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - the article was created by editor Flaviohmg who I flagged up in a COI discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Flaviohmg_and_possible_COI). I believe that this may be a paid article, and while of course the topic may turn out to be notable I suspect that it is more of a PR piece. Shritwod (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Shritwod I picked up on the same thing, and that's why I'm here. Assuming there is no fluff content in the article, once the notability is established, it should probably exist. I am concerned about these blog "reviews", because if a promotional company is so skeevy as to hire editors to fill Wikipedia up with bullshit content that violates our terms of service, I wouldn't put it past these same companies to create their own blogs, fill them up with paid reviews, and use these blog sites in attempts to establish notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The article reads more like a "puff" article than anything else. There's no evidence that any of his tracks have made the charts, and I think you have to be pretty desperate to use "ABC Radio National has aired some of his work" as a claim of notability - numerous people have performed on the BBC, or had their music played there, but that doesn't make them notable, it just means the BBC needed to fill up some airtime. I'm confident that ABC Radio National doesn't have such high standards that simply being broadcast by them is a matter for the history books. RomanSpa (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RomanSpa I was responsible for "some of his work" as the previous version said, "In addition, ABC Radio National has shown support of his work." Obviously that phrasing makes it seem like he is backed/endorsed by ABC Radio National. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep With all respect to the policies of Wikipedia I have found that this artists' references to be credible, verifiable and legitimate, and the profile to be notable. Further, the deprecatory attitude along with the assertions placed on this artist are unmeasured and ill-judged. From just a few hours of scouring the net and combing through sites I've found that this artists has been mentioned in Germany's BEAT magazine, Pic 1, Pic 2 and Pic 3.

I will reiterate what I said early in Talk:Fescal that it seems the decision to select this article for deletion was done with haste and without background reading on the subject. If one takes the time to read up on the subject in question, ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) has been cited as a reference, not once, but twice and according the the website he's had 21 minutes 30 of air time (12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network), see here Abstract Shining & Where All Roads Lead. Also, the subject in question has featured in a few magazines (physical and digital). Also, it is much appreciated that Cyphoidbomb is seeking for translation for the German Beat Magazine publication. To mention the Igloo magazine citations, please see here for not one, but 5 publications. I personally would not consider these to be 'a passing mention', perhaps if there was only one article on the artist, but since there are five, this does make me think it's not 'a passing mention' but to provide objective evidence of notability and recognition of his contribution to the genre of ambient-drone music.

Further, I have found 3 more publications on the artist here FLUID RADIO. One article is not about the artists' release, but it makes reference to his style, which tells me that he's notable to some extent if other people refer to his music when reviewing other artists, click here .

Lastly, the notability of the artist falls into criteria 1 as stated here 'Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles' Moreover, in 2012, the artist's album was named by Igloomagazine as one of the Top 15 Ambient/Drone release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoninIceland (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Hi SimoninIceland.. the article came to my attention while investigating a series of articles that appeared to have been created for profit. The consensus from other editors so far is that most of these articles should be deleted, although each one is considered on its own merits. This article does seem to be developing, so it could well be that notability is established (which would be fine by me). Shritwod (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*The first is a very short review - even shorter than the one I linked to, so not sufficient to meet in-depth requirements or multiple source requirements of WP:BIO.

• Having some tracks played on a radio station doesn't make a musician notable. NMUSIC #12 would require the show to be about Fescal, not simply playing his tracks.
• We need sources which demonstrate he is notable, not your interpretation of why he is - the reviews at igloomag and fluid-radio are better than what we have so far, but they're very specialist sources and demonstrate that notability is shaky at best. There are so many music sites and magazines out there, but we shouldn't have an article on every artist who's albums are reviewed. I still think that some coverage in a better known source (or evidence that the sources listed are top-notch for the genre) before we keep the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Hi Shritwod, what about Germany's BEAT magazine, Pic 1, Pic 2 and Pic 3 ? and I just found this futuresequence

• Keep : Notable per coverage. --Happydit (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)