Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonas (hip hop artist)

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 no consensus. So Why 15:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas (hip hop artist)

[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)

Promotional linkspam article with unreliable sources. Redraftify possible if people finally understand that promotion is not allowed here. » Shadowowl | talk 18:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment additional review of potentially reliable sources (not Youtube/IMDB/Itunes shit)

Source	Type	Suitable
[1]	I cannot load this page. Reviewing the URL, I think this is a bad link because it refers to a tag and not an article	Possible
[2]	Mention	No
[3]	Interview	Primary source
[4]	Mention	Yes. It proves the point that they had a tour, but not the previous point about 50 cities. In fact, it says that he toured in less cities making the article having a minor hoax.
[5]	Interview	Primary source
[6]	Promotional reviews that are usergenerated	No

EDIT : New sources added. Let's review them.

Source	Type	Suitable
[7]	Interview	Primary source
[8]	Another interview	Primary source
[9]	Another interview	Primary source

If these are the great sources that decided to move this from draft, we seriously need to consider to who we listen with move requests. » Shadowowl | talk 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowowl: You appear to be dismissing interviews out of hand as primary sources. This isn't consistent with WP:INTERVIEW whereby the fact of the interview itself may confer notability, and there may be significant secondary material within an interview such as biography or analysis by the interviewer. I'm not saying that the links you classify as interviews do confer notability, but I think you need to build your case for that better than just saying interview=primary source. I checked the first link above and there is a significant biography of the subject in it. While this could still bear investigation, e.g. WP:INTERVIEW warns that some sources ask the subject of an interview to write their own biography, it is certainly completely possible that the bio is secondary information. Ross-c (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I speedied this initially but restored for improvement after a request from an experienced uninvolved editor. I think this version still fails to meet our criteria in terms of notability or sourcing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever else is decided, I can't see how all those links to YouTube can be acceptable in the light of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I agree. The article really needs work to be neutral POV and encyclopaedic. But, that's WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an odd one. I'd expect more coverage for the artist, but the sources are poor. He did have some Billboard entries - [10] (but only one album listed in two charts, therefore the claim that his album has consistently appear in the charts is somewhat dubious) possibly satisfying WP:MUSICBIO, although a lowly position in the chart is not that compelling. Perhaps draftify and see if it can be improved. Hzh (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an odd one. I found some references to the subject, e.g. [11] The Billboard charting would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, but the link to find out more on Billboard's site is broken - not an indication of lack of notability, just that Billboard's site doesn't work properly. While All Access Music is frequently used as a source on Wikipedia, the title of that article just strikes me as a bit ... odd. There's this: [12], this is local [13], this is from elsewhere, so not just local cover age [14], this is from a magazine [15]. It's not a lot, but I believe this satisfies WP:GNG which added to the WP:NMUSIC of the one charting EP on Billboard (plus other charts mentioned in the article) is enough. Ross-c (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Youtube can't referee BLP notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a few more comments on Ross-c's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Rossc that WP:NMUSIC is passed for charting albums and there is just about enough rs coverage to pass WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2018 (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.