Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Baggz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Baggz

[edit]
Mike Baggz (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. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claimed airplay is not rotation, digital radio tracker is not a good chart. Prod removed without comment or improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reasoning for deletion seems arbitrary and subjective. Lack of coverage and Digital Radio Tracker as good vs. bad seem very non-specific and subjective. How often an artist comes out with new material or updates a page should not be subject to an individual, arbitrary and subjective standard. Appearances with major, well known artists merits keeping this article. No reason listed justifies the removal of an active artist's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticulusRex (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find social media of his, download and sales sites, but no non-promotional sources about him. He is a self-recorded artist. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. LaMona (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is a self recorded artist? Can someone elaborate how being self recorded or independent discredits notoriety? And wouldn't Asap Ferg, Nipsey Hustle, The Game, 50 cent, Drake, Lil Wayne, Master P, Dr. Dre, Eminem and a multitude of other artist be considered self recorded? Sorry not understanding the statement or phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.41.6 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Two of the IPs here have made only one edit - this one - so either socking or canvassing must be going on. The IP beginning 209 is the creator ofan SPA on the article. 209 also removed the AfD notice from the article, but it was reverted. The article has been WP:REFSPAM'd and of the refs that I checked many do not verify the content, others are things like sales and download sites (iTunes, etc.). At this point, if the article is to be retained it needs to revert to an earlier version or TNT. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree with the previous statement; "Reasoning for deletion seems arbitrary and subjective. Lack of coverage and Digital Radio Tracker as good vs. bad seem very non-specific and subjective. How often an artist comes out with new material or updates a page should not be subject to an individual, arbitrary and subjective standard. Appearances with major, well known artists merits keeping this article. No reason listed justifies the removal of an active artist's page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.84.85 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep artist has notable publications, in news, international & entertainment media news, and has been featured on known artists projects. If this page was going to be deleted it would of happened years ago when it was created, reasoning for deletion is not sufficient enough under Wikipedia's guidelines stated in WP:NMUSIC Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Swerrrdmedia is the original creator of the article. The article was created in Oct. 2014. Articles often linger for a while on Wikipedia before being brought to AfD. "Old" articles are those created in the very early days, 2006-2008, and they are sometimes treated differently because there were different rules then. This is not an entirely unusual. It also is not a reason for a keep !vote. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went through the first 17 references, and found only a few that actually validate the statements in the article. Other than quality issues (non-reliable sources) the majority did not confirm the information in the article. I marked these as "not in citation given" but in fact most should be deleted for RS reasons. (e.g. download sites, fan sites, mentions, lists). LaMona (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think you should check references after 17-, most of the reputable publications are listed after. If your going to moderate at least be a little thorough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good try, Swerrrdmedia, but the references >17 only reference the discography, so that would leave the entire text of the article poorly referenced, which is still a problem. Honestly, what could this mean?: "The Beauty Of Money (2015) [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]"? fifteen references to source a single recording? That's why I gave up there. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Swerrrdmedia is an SPA who shares a username with a company that has a paid relationship with subject. In 2014 they rejected claims there is a COI, stating that they are just a fan. In 2 years here, they've been most uninterested in making any unrelated contributions. Consider this when reviewing their comments as it feels as though perhaps there's a lack of true independence. Rayman60 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i am in no way affiliated with swerrrdmedia or the artist. And as far as the edits on the subject in general, because of the COI claim i changed my Username years ago and make edits under a different alias, can we please not make this article about me or my edits and focus on the subject at hand. Show some class and respect to the Wikipedia platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as promotional ("aggz was raised in the middle class suburbs of New York in a small town called Islip, which is home to many influential artists such as Keith Murray, EPMD, LL Cool J, & Craig Mack." , rand inadequately sourced. This isn't my field, but those who do work in this area are quite specific about what charts are acceptable, and it seems their list has wide consensus. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 August 2016 (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/Mike_Baggz&oldid=1143718609"