Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deuce (singer) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 24 February 2012 (Closing debate, result was redirect to Hollywood Undead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 redirect to Hollywood Undead. I suspect that this person will, indeed, achieve notability at some point, but despite a number of keeps here, there does not appear to be any convincing evidence that he yet meets WP:BAND. The analysis by Gongshow is excellently presented. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce (singer)

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

Deuce (aka Aron Erlichman) is a former member of the band Hollywood Undead. He has no notability outside of that band and [non-notable] members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles. This was affirmed at AfD in February 2010 and again at Afd nine months ago. Since then nothing has changed, indeed it was affirmed that none of his solo recordings are notable at this AfD last month and this AfD this month, and the Deuce template was deleted at this TfD this month. However the article keeps coming back. Three months ago Aron "Deuce" Erlichman and Aron Erlichman were protected to stop recreation so this article was recreated instead. There is no need to retain this as a redirect; there is already a link to Hollywood Undead more appropriately at the Deuce DAB page and given the history of re-creation I propose Delete and Salt RichardOSmith (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom and previous AfDs. Some previous claims of notability were based on produced works, which (per their previous AfDs) were found to be non-notable, and WP:BAND for a person isn't just being prolific or being an individual in a notable or prolific group. DMacks (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm extremely confused as to how Deuce is not notable as a solo-artist? As I mentioned in the articles talk page, "upcoming album, legal battles, performed alongside eminem at Epicenter Fest., official mixtape, signed to same label as Papa roach, motley crue, blondie, buckcherry and more, sponsored by a clothing line, worked with Ronnie Radke, Skee-Lo, Travie McCoy, Jeffree Star, BrokeNCYDE [all of which are notable artists], plans to tour with BrokeNCYDE, Blood on the Dance Floor and Jeffree Star [all of which are notable artists], exceeded 100,000 likes on Facebook, two officially released singles with Five Seven Music, under 10th St Entertainment, under eleven seven) not to mention work with Hollywood Undead" - surely these things alone, (exclude the HU notability) is enough to have a wikipedia page. The whole point of wikipedia is to educate and inform people of the topics they search for, it's evident that Deuce is notable enough for an article by the amount of "where as your wikipedia gone?" messages from fans, left on his Facebook every time it gets redirected. I believe this whole nomination for deletion to be a conflict of interest by a Hollywood Undead fan, because they seem to be the only ones really disagreeing with the fact that Deuce is notable on his own. Sorry for the assumption, and sorry if I'm incorrect. Maybe we need some kind of poll. TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • You said "surely these things alone ... is enough to have a wikipedia page". I believe not. Would you care to cite any guidelines an policies that say they are? Certainly, none of them meets the inclusion requirements at WP:MUSICBIO: Subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works? No. The New York Post article is interesting, but it's about Hollywood Undead, not his solo career. Single or album on any country's national music chart? No. Record certified gold or higher? No. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of a ... tour? No. Citing that he's toured with other artists is insufficient; it's not his tour, and there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels ... with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable? No. Citing that he's signed to a label with notable musicians may establish the notability of the label, but he hasn't released any albums yet, let alone two. Note that singles and mix-tapes are not included. Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles? No. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city? No, not shown to be the case. Has won or been nominated for a major music award? No. Has won or placed in a major music competition? No. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable? No. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network? No. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network? No. Please also restrict your comments to the subject rather than me; attempting to 'discredit' the nomination in this way is, frankly, a bit lame. See the template I have placed above as to why this is a discussion and not a poll. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's a former member of a famous band, he's now signed to a record label (Eleven Seven Music, which considering the other artists signed to it, is a big deal) as a solo artist, he's been mentioned in publications (see the New York Post link and others) and he's about to release an album in March. I see no reason to delete this page; its only weakness is its tendency to rely on sources directly connected to Deuce himself for certain information (the article is overly detailed and elaborate), BUT that does not mean the other reliable sources can be discounted. 221.213.10.26 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the kind of thing that could yet satisfy the WP:GNG. Artistdirect is clearly a notable publication, though the opening text "ARTISTdirect.com has partnered with the rap-rock visionary known as Deuce" suggests it's not entirely independent of the subject. Do you have any more? RichardOSmith (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of these, the one at Noisecreep is, I would suggest, the most notable. The site has, according to Wikipedia, an "emphasis on lesser-known hard rock and heavy metal bands", but is never-the-less a part of AOL. It certainly seems that the artist is managing to attract some publicity in advance of his planned album release. As nominator of the AfD I will leave it to others and/or the closing admin to adjudge whether this coverage is sufficiently notable to meet the WP:GNG; it is certainly far greater coverage of his solo career than had previously been presented, or I had been able to find. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. While doing some research I came back across Deuce's wikipedia and noticed it was up for deletion. Richard, here is an interview I literally did with Deuce yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBMef5lScV0&list=UU6csxBR_iv27dRh-WAYqVpA&index=1&feature=plcp As you can see, it has already generated nearly 550 views in under twenty four hours, no small feat for any radio interview or product not accompanied by video. I also would like to point out my show, which is part of a medium market radio station, is broadcasting an edited version of this interview on Saturday- with broadcasting capability which covers both North Georgia and eastern Tennessee, including Chattanooga. While we are not syndicated, and as I said are a medium market station, I think we qualify as another example of adequate media coverage. We cover and interview many artists and entertainers, everyone from Greg Giraldo right before his death, to Joe Budden (Eminems artist), Tech N9ne and various other notable public figures. I don't think it was said, but Deuces latest video was also a main feature on Fuse.tv a few days ago- a very reputable site. Also most of the content on his page is generally agreed upon to be factual and has not been disputed by anyone who would be in position to do so. I encourage you to reverse your opinion. Thanks. Radioguy706 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the avoidance of doubt, even if I were to withdraw the deletion nomination the process would continue - another editor also supports deletion and I cannot retract his comment for him. The final decision will not be made by me but by an admin who will base their decision on the various arguments made for and against.
There is no question that the subject is notable as a member of Hollywood Undead but what we need to establish is whether he is independently notable, as is required for a standalone article. There is still, for me, a very compelling argument that he is not. Unlike a newcomer, he is already in the news and therefore likely to find it easier to gain publicity for his solo efforts. So are the new sources presented sufficient to pass WP:GNG? A way of deciding it is with this test: if we were writing retrospectively and the subject's solo career had not been successful, would we have an article? I would suggest there would be at best no more than a footnote in the HU article, despite the amount of press achieved thus far, and per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume future achievements. So on that basis, the article still has no place. Of course, if it is deleted we must be prepared for circumstances to change, and we would be: a new assessment could be made at WP:DRV and if it is agreed that circumstances have changed the article could be undeleted; nothing need be permanently lost even if the decision is to delete now. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all of this (http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/exclusive-premiere-behind-the-scenes-of-deuce-s-america-video/9867358, http://loudwire.com/deuce-video-america/, http://banana1015.com/deuce-formerly-of-hollywood-undead-releases-lets-get-it-crackin-music-video/, http://www.noisecreep.com/2012/01/09/deuce-hollywood-undead-america-song/, http://pcm-music.com/2011/11/deuce-lives-on-five-seven-music/, http://loudwire.com/deuce-unveils-nine-lives-album-cover-new-release-date-tour-plans/, http://puregrainaudio.com/news/deuce-of-hollywood-undead-announces-epicenter-2010-solo-performance, http://highwiredaze.com/deucenews1, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsburger/52939796-53/deuce-album-hollywood-lives.html.csp) doesn't count for independent notability, I don't know what does. That's eight independent sources, mind you. I suspect that the reason this page keeps getting nominated for deletion is because people see Deuce only as the former frontman of a signed band, not a solo artist that is signed to a record company with a huge fanbase. 221.213.118.244 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I say keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.239.85 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I'm giving the benefit of doubt for the sources listed above; thus, inviting a final opinion call on their validity. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources supplied by the IP above. They certainly tend to rebuke the nominator's assertion that "nothing has changed" since the previous AfD 9 months ago. Yes, the sources all tend to be around one event, but taken in concert with the rest of his career, I think there's enough here for an article, and I think notability independent of his former band has been established. At an absolute bare minimum, even if this article is deleted -- and I really don't think it should be -- the sources supplied strongly suggest the article topic should not be salted. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:06 am, Today (UTC−5)
  • Am I misreading the sourcing? Noisecreep is an Aol pub, afaik Loudwire is a good source, as is ArtistDirect, and most of the rest look reliable-ish to me (with two exceptions: PCM Music, Pure Grain Audio). If I'm off-base on the sourcing, then I might take back my keep vote. It's hardly a slam dunk case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom and per above. Most sources seem to be promotional; I don't see anything to indicate notability aside from involvement with the band, which suggests a failure of notability. I'm inclined towards salting, but perhaps a hair more cautious there.Tyrenon (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the sources are mostly press releases/promotional and I see nothing else of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is gaining much recognition as a solo artist. I listen to SiriusXM Octane and they play his new single "America" more than a few times a day, which landed #15 on their big uns weekly countdown. The information is relevant and should be noted that he is now a solo artist that was a former member of Hollywood Undead. Just because Hollywood Undead sucks now and hates Deuce for being the key member of their group doesn't mean he shouldn't have a page of his own. 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.220.59 (talk)
  • Keep per Ginsengbomb, a part of the sources provided by 221.213.10.56 appears reliable. Cavarrone (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources listed above as well as WP:BAND bullets #10 and #11. He has performed for a notable event (Epicenter with Eminem, KISS, and others) and he is also beginning to receive radio rotation on Banana 101.5, 89xRadio, and other notable national radio broadcasts. He is releasing an album which, according to him, is selling over 1000+ units a week (as well as his two singles), which will add up to a few thousand preorders EXTREMELY conservatively, which 3 thousand is still usually enough to chart on the Billboard 200 upon release. Realistically, the album will chart in the Top 50 on the Billboard 200 upon release, which will definitely satisfy WP:BAND #2 no matter what. So, if my two reasons above weren't enough to keep it, then number 3 will be on April 24th. So, there is no point in deleting this well written and sourced article. GroundZ3R0 002 03:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apologies in advance if anyone finds the following to be WP:TL;DR. Now, looking at the WP:MUSICBIO criteria:
1. "Subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works." The Noisecreep and Salt Lake Tribune pieces would be fine except they are/read like press release reprints. The Loudwire blurbs might be okay; the site (and others like Taste of Country) is owned by Townsquare Media, and appears to qualify as generally reliable. The New York Post is, well, "tabloid-y", but not completely unreliable. With attribution, one could write: "In February 2011, the New York Post reported that Deuce filed a lawsuit against...". That said, I wouldn't suggest that the Post should be used to establish notability. The wording of the ARTISTdirect article is interesting (the site "partnered" with Deuce) - I don't know if I'm just reading too much into that. I'm not convinced on the reliability of the other sources provided. On the whole, it's fairly close but I'd like to see if the criteria below might push him over the edge either way.
2. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." His single "America" is heading to U.S. rock radio next week, and some stations are already playing it according to Mediabase (including Sirius; see criterion #11 below). It's possible the song will reach the Billboard Mainstream Rock and/or Rock Songs charts in the near future. His solo album has an April release date and it's quite possible that it will enter at least the Billboard 200 chart considering the latest album by the band he formerly fronted recently debuted in the Top 5. I'd say it's likely this criterion gets a "yes" within the next two months, but that's getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory, so I'll proceed.
3. "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." Not as a solo artist.
4-9. Nope.
10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" (e.g., tv/film). I don't think the above claim of live festival performances is, in this case, significant enough to apply.
11. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network." Yes, if Sirius counts. Here's a link (requires log-in; alternatively, here's a screenshot) showing airplay for his song "America".
12. "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Not that I can find.
This subject's multiple deletions/recreations reminds me of the band Falling In Reverse, whose article was deleted 23 times (by one admin's count) before it finally survived for good. For what it's worth, the Deuce article in its current state looks a bit better than the early Falling in Reverse drafts I recall seeing. My preferred outcome here is to incubate the article so it can continue to be improved over the next few-to-several weeks, at which time it's likely the singer's notability will no longer be questionable (ie, additional coverage for the upcoming album; chart info for the album/single).  Gongshow Talk 06:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it should be kept, I can't really dispute any of what you say here and, either way, I definitely think it's a borderline case at best. Given the likelihood that the subject's notability will likely be a lot less questionable within a few weeks, I would personally be completely fine with incubation if there is no outright consensus to keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree the subject is likely to become sufficiently notable for an article in future but WP:CRYSTAL obviously applies here. Furthermore, multiple previous AfDs have resulted in the article redirected so we should also consider whether there is good reason for overturning that and as you say, it's borderline at best. I too think it quite reasonable to userfy the article pending any change in circumstance which would overturn a delete outcome - but given the number of times the article has previously come back against consensus I would still prefer a delete and salt outcome so that its resurrection is properly discussed at WP:DRV and the matter is unambiguously settled. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2012 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deuce_(singer)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=478520530"