Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insyde

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ShelbyMarion (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 29 July 2019 (→Insyde). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Insyde

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Insyde (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)

Being streamed however many times does not qualify for the charting, certification, and airplay requirements at WP:NSINGER #2, 3, 11, 12. A WP:BEFORE search reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources to confirm any of the other criteria at WP:NSINGER. All that can be found are routine retail and streaming directories, plus an empty placeholder at AllMusic. Article is probably an attempted promotion and, charitably, it is too soon for this rapper to merit a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -In the "Delete" vote above the editor claims that this artist does not meet the WP:NSINGER requirements, but he has released 2 albums on AWAL, fulfilling requirement #5.[1] [2] [3] [4] I also edited the article for the original author to remove any "self promotion" style writing and to make it have a more neutral tone.___GingeBro (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - when searching "Insyde Music" on Google: [1] EVERY result is referring to this Insyde. Also, I was able to find some blog coverage of his song. [2] and also another wiki entry: [3] and [4]. Also found a website mentioning him here: [5] His music is also released by the label (Shoelace Records) that released music for Otis Taylor (musician) Also his youtube channel is a Verified Artist Channel, which is only given to artists on large labels with contacts at YouTube, and it means that YouTube deemed there enough coverage and the chance of impersonation of this artist to give it the verified Artist mark. Also is mentioned in the independent music tracking website MusicBrainz (Often used by Wikipedia to gather data for songs and artists) [6]. Plenty of mentions and credibility found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.30.174 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Distro Deal". Insyde Blog. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
  2. ^ "Album Released!". Retrieved 16 July 2019.
  3. ^ "New Album out now! – Insyde". Retrieved 16 July 2019.
  4. ^ "Albums removed. – Insyde". Retrieved 16 July 2019.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the above "keep" vote, the other Wikis are copies of THIS version of Wikipedia and prove nothing but website mirroring. The Google search performed by that voter reveals a list of streaming, retail, and lyrics sites that you would get after searching for any musician. All other "sources" given in that vote merely indicate that the rapper exists, not that he has received reliable coverage. See the guidelines given in the original nomination, plus WP:EXIST and WP:ROUTINE. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He does have a point about the youtube artist channel though. Those are pretty exclusive.---GingeBro 15:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the SPI does not look like it will be timely resolved, This is a second !keep vote from the above ip 71..., made here [7], "The musician does qualify by WP:NSINGER standards, but doesn't have many strong references from reliable sources. If not kept, then I request it to be moved to the Draft space for further improvements." They quickly remove it [8]. 7 Minutes later GingeBro restores it [9], "The musician does qualify by WP:NSINGER standards, but doesn't have many strong references from reliable sources. If not kept, then I request it to be moved to the Draft space for further improvements." This is a duplicate !vote fro a meat or sockpuppet. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to log in, that's why I reverted the changes, I wanted to make sure everyone was clear who was making the edit. Not a sockpuppet, simply forgetting to log in. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Vote Change - I changed my stance to Keep from Weak Keep because the artist does pass notability standard for musicians as per WP:NSINGER. (Irrelevant bit of information: Also about a month ago I heard his song on a major Spotify editorial playlist. Another irrelevant note, the lyrics have been viewed a lot on Genius, which says something to me at least. He seems to have an engaged follower base, unlike the typical garage band wikipedia pages. That's my 2 cents.) --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first keep !vote basically sums up this articles problems. The WP:GHITS claim is not true. IP found blogs, wikis. Not reliable sources. The site mentioning him is a PR listing. Claim about verified is not true, youtube did not evaluate "coverage". Musicbrainz is just a listing. Mentions are not indepth coverage. On the later claim of AWAL, they are distributors, not the releasing record co. Nothing good for GNG or MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Duffbeerforme: I agree there is no notable coverage about this artist. However, AWAL is not just a distributor, they are considered a full fledged label. They have a marketing department, sync department, and they bought a prominent radio station music pitching company. Distribution companies do not have all those things. So as I see it, the artist does fall under WP:NSINGER. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's pretend for a moment that Insyde lied when he said he'd signed a distribution deal. What two albums are you talking about? Reading the article I see a total of zero. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: - That is a possiblity. We would have to find a way to verify if he is actually signed to AWAL as he claims. (Are we allowed to try to contact AWAL and/or the artist for verification?) Currently on Spotify I only see one item listed as an album.[10] Depending on how we interpret #5 WP:MUSICBIO, this artist may not pass. If we are interpreting it on a basis of "has released" or a basis of "has (possibly) released, but taken down". I don't really know what the policy is in this case, if you can point me to any answers similar to this and the outcome, I may have to amend my vote as needed. Also another thing to point out, in researching the artist, I found out that he is about to release more music on August 2, which is coming up fast, which would add the second 'album' entry on Spotify. I am not sure how strict we have been on that in the past as well. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the nominator and I'm trying not to bludgeon this debate any further, but I hope admins will avoid a simple vote count and look closely at the reasoning behind the various "keep" votes above. The reasoning is faulty, to put it charitably. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely interested in learning the reasoning behind your opinion. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on dearth of RS coverages/recognition and the fallacy of the rationales provided by editors voting keep. For a subject to pop up in a google search means little towards notability if all they are are for wiki mirrors, retail and download sites, which is the case here. A verified YouTube channel is not (according to one editor) ”only given to artists on large labels with contacts at YouTube, and it means that YouTube deemed there enough coverage and the chance of impersonation of this artist to give it the verified Artist mark proof”. It is, in fact available to anyone who simply applies. See [11].

As for AWAL, a simple investigation of their site reveals It is not a “label” at all, but rather a multi-tiered service for do-it-yourself artists and independent labels to build success. In structure it is not unlike those quasi-vanity publishing houses offered to authors to get published, providing distribution and marketing services, etc. on multi-tier levels where the creator retains the rights/liabilities, and the service gets a piece of the action (i.e. their “fee”) based proportional on the level of service. See: [12]. As you can see from that link, to be with AWAL simply means all an artist needs to do is pass their submission criteria (in other words, be weeded out from the amateurs by having merit that could lead to genuine success.) To be clear, an Artist or label that has a deal with AWAL can be notable for other reasons, but in and by itself, being with AWAL doesn’t meet WP:MUSICIAN criteria for a being signed to a notable label. The wording “signed a deal with AWAL” is nothing more than WP:PUFFERY.

Bottom line: all that’s left is the argument being made for keep is based on WP:EXISTS, with no evidence of significant, independent recognition. At best, WP:TOOSOON ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Insyde&oldid=908438992"