Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Belt & Wezol (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Belt & Wezol

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an earlier removed article. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. The Banner talk 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted as the artists exist and are well known and very active in EDM circles. 2a00:23c5:8f93:b100:71e9:e59d:dce4:dd21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Keep per article in the Eindhovens Dagblad and frequent coverage of new releases. gidonb (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article meets the WP:GNG. 18 references (!) have been directly added to the article. There are plenty more! gidonb (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are plenty sources about their appearances and tracks. But what we need are sources about the duo itself. The Banner talk 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the arts are almost always before/after shows or releases. This is how the arts media works. All the references, except for a few general festival lineups, are about the duo. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be true, I am not exactly impressed by the long list of non-notable festivals where they have performed. The Banner talk 12:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also irrelevant to WP:N. The indepth coverage establishes that the duo is notable. Besides we do not know if any or all of these festivals are not notable. No articles were created and no AFD discussions were held. All red herrings. The premise is also wrong. At the very least, Weekend Festival in Stcokholm has an article. Some other festivals have an article at nl.wiki, where you also try to have this article removed. Dutch DJs are not less notable than other entertainers. On the contrary, Holland has developed an internationally succesful tradition of DJ-ing. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were not exactly headliners on that festival, playing a side-stage. Beside that, in Wikiworld a festival is notable when it has an article. If not, it is deemed to be not-notable. The Banner talk 07:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these festivals have WP articles, here or at nl.wiki, others not. These (non-)articles can be true or false positives or negatives hence your claims are meaningless. Nothing but a smoke screen. The duo is notable because it meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims and the prove thereof are at best flimsy. The Banner talk 09:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very solid. That's why I do not need distractions... gidonb (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I have removed the irrelevant and excessively long quotes from the references of the article. Everybody should be able to look the info up in the given sources. The Banner talk 12:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information removal from the article will not make a difference. This nomination is a WP:BEFORE failure. gidonb (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, after adding countless non-notable festivals, you claim that I did not do my homework proper? Funny. The Banner talk 10:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least you can laugh it away! The facts that is was so easy to prove WP:GNG, charts were overlooked, your arguments here are really distractions that only work in your parallel nomination at nl.wiki, and that you need to take WP:OWNERSHIP over the article during the AfD are telling. When it is a football club that others try to delete you are happy that I reference (thank you!). Here it was one that you nominated. Nothing of all this is personal. gidonb (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known with lots of coverage, article needs improvement but is still definitely notable.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone demonstrate all this coverage that exists? Because there’s only 2 sources in the article, and one is Discogs (not usable) Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've split between references (ED) and external links (Discogs, SoundCloud). gidonb (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure...but that leaves us with...one local newspaper? That’s not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not local and there's much more. I may or may not get around to referencing. Very busy. For an individual to decide on keep or delete one should look at the sources, NOT at the references, as both opionion expressors did. They speak of coverage, i.e. sources. The IP opinion may not carry a lot of weight. gidonb (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I know that it’s about the existence of sources, but as long as everyone is just saying “there are sources” without proof of it here or at the article, their stances are going to be dismissed as WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 11:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably find time to reference the article in the weekend. I did add the best source that I saw -- a long and detailed article in a well-read regional newspaper -- and have split off the non-references to where these belong, the external links. The other references I saw are somewhat shorter, in music magazines. Usually articles about the duo's releases, as I mentioned above. In the meantime, anyone can see these in or reference themselves from Google News. gidonb (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to source all their tracks or are you also going to source the notability of the subject? Sources about the duo are still fairly scarce, hre and on the internet. The Banner talk 07:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, as I said from start, most articles I found were published after song releases. I only started mapping these. Many of these articles also contain information about the duo. The subject domains of individual tracks versus the recording duo are not mutually exclusive. Sources about the duo are not scarce. It is my conclusion that this the duo is notable per WP:GNG. WP:NEXIST also applies. The essay referenced above is totally irrelevant to my position. It looks irrelevant also to Seacactus 13, although I do not speak for him.

User:Sergecross73, the above was also to you. Remember before you make unreasonable demands of your peers: WP:NEXIST is policy, BTMBS is just an essay! gidonb (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking to prove the notability of a subject with independent (not in anyway related to the subject), reliable (no social media), prior published sources about the subject is not an unreasonable request. The Banner talk 15:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just did in the article. Problem is that it creates inequality between those who look at the SOURCES and reach an educated decision that notability is sufficiently supported and lazy bums who can only depend on others. This inequality costs Wikipedia lots of great articles! gidonb (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just took at a number of sources and removed spam and info not backed up by the sources. The Banner talk 21:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exaggerate. A bit of cleanup. Tone a nudge down. Good edits. Thank you! gidonb (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my search did not come up with any sources that would meet the WP:GNG, nor has anyone actually provided proof of meeting it above. One newspaper articles is not enough for the GNG, especially with a WP:BLP. Open to changing my stance if anyone actually follows through on their claims above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112 Interested in your opinion on this one as it is outside of my more customary areas of editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep...I see some evidence on the article that they've received some coverage in Dutch-language media, so maybe they haven't received a lot of attention outside of the Netherlands and Belgium/in English-language media. Outside of Beatport, which has a very transient chart listing (updated daily, I believe), they have appeared on the Belgian Ultratip charts (but have yet to break through to the Ultratop 50): [1] so I'm leaning towards weak keep here. Ss112 04:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the Ultratip is a lower chart then the Ultratop. It works as a kind of pre-level before an number can enter the real charts. The songs there are tipped, but not charting. The Banner talk 17:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have press, they chart, they play a lot of festivals and they release original music. They have plenty of publicity too. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources have been added after it was nominated AfD to satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2019 (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.