Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Tapz

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. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Tapz

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Being featured on a single that charted isn't quite enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO#2. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the article clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO #1, #2 and #8. Harut111 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harut111: His claim to winning an award needs a source and I already explained why criteria #2 is inapplicable. I also doubt the reliability and independence of the two nontrivial sources we have furnished, Complex and Remix Magazine, because of their overtly promotional tone. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over the past few years there has only been a few mentions in mainstream media and apart from promo's nothing else of note. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but not enough for WP:MUSICBIO at present NealeFamily (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Changed to Keep as the music award combined with media coverage brings Tapz up to WP:MUSICBIO standard NealeFamily (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention in a non-related publication would appear to fail SIGCOV and therefore GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone here at least read the 8th point of WP:MUSICBIO? The singer won a major award...why are you even continuing this discussion? Harut111 (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He did indeed win an award at the 2017 MTV Europe Music Awards, and here is confirmation from some New Zealand-focused sources: [1], [2], [3]. Here is also a fairly solid journalistic piece on him: [4]. A better way to conduct this debate would be to determine if "Best New Zealand Act" at a supposedly European awards ceremony qualifies as a "major" award. One problem is that some news sources on the ceremony do not list that particular award, such as: [5], [6]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, are the ETVs in the same teir as the awards given as examples for that criteria? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a sourced claim that he won an award and an amount of news coverage. Some of the cited sources ([7][8][9]) are blatantly promotional in at least some portions, are of dubious independence, and should probably be removed. But this and this are both okay, and there's some other usable stuff. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless DerbyCountyinNZ can defend his assertion that all but one of the sources are affiliated (which I honestly wouldn't doubt but hasn't yet been firmly established) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NZ Herald is not a music-based publication, all the others (at the time I posted) are music-related and therefore not independent of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what independent means... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little to the above, an independent source should be outside the topic (Mr. Tapz) but does not have to be outside the subject (music). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with substanial coverage in RS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:23, 3 June 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.