Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaclipse

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. IronGargoyle 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seaclipse

Seaclipse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I was unable to find a single somewhat reliable source in the first 12 pages of the google results [1]. Most of the results were for unrelated products.(WP:MUSIC) nadav (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable musician --NMChico24 18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep given a CD has been released on a record label and is listed on amazon, seems notable. --Oscarthecat 13:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You will find many books and monographs by total unknowns on Amazon. That doesn't necessarily mean the same is true here, but it does mean this argument is faulty. nadav (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) What we need to do is find reliable sources about him on which to base an encyclopedia article. I've tried, but couldn't find any. nadav (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comments by page author

You are on record stating: "I was unable to find a single somewhat reliable source in the first 12 pages of the Google results - most of the results were for unrelated products."

Are you blind or just completely making this up?

I just ran the exact same search on this artist "Seaclipse" and not only did the majority of the information that was found in my search come back in relation to what I searched, but more then 200 links were found on this artist. Including some of the most reliable sources on the internet such as: aol.com, amazom.com, mtv.com, just to name a few. So needless to say your claims are absolutely ridiculous.

As for the artist in question: SEACLIPSE

The following are just a few the 100's of "Google Links" that were reported in my search.

http://www.ultraxrecords.net/KM/seaclipse.htm - This is a record label's website that has this artist listed as one of their "Signed Recording Artist"

http://www.clubzone.com/events/event20087.html - This is just one of many random links to various major websites that have this artist listed as a live performer on a concert.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000G7PLXI/ref=pd_sl_aw_alx-jeb-9-1_music_17707593_1 - This is a sponsored link on "Google" placed by "Amazon.com" what more is there to say, this is hands down the most compelling evidence that you are completely wrong!

http://www.myspace.com/seaclipse - This is the myspace.com page that I found on this artist, which if you would simply open up your ears you could listen to the music that this artist has streaming on his page which just so happens to feature the same exact artists by "name" that I listed as in affiliated with Seaclipse.

http://music.aol.com/artist/seaclipse/719924/main - This is the official page for this artist that I found on "AOL Music" which features new artists and the site it self was created by aol.com

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=769156&aid=786124 - This is a page for this artist I found on Billboard.com - Billboard Magazine!

http://shop.mtv.com/Playin-with-Fire-MTV-Home_stcVVproductId5310831VVcatId420851VVviewprod.htm - MTV.com Website, enough said!

Just because you are not aware of this artist does not mean the artist doesn't exist, so why is any of this information in question at all?

<personal attack removed by Satori Son 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)>

I'm a new fan of seaclipse's music and in the recent past have even purchase one of his CD's, upon finding nothing in the "Wikipedia" system on "Seaclipse" I decided to create a new article on this artist myself. That is the actual purpose of the "Wikipedia Website" after all!!!

This page should not be deleted.

Thank You

Thebluematrix 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — Thebluematrix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I appreciate that you're a fan of this artist, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles in it need to be based on reliable, secondary sources. Please review WP:RS to get a sense of what kind of sources should be used. The commercial links above are not considered reliable (obviously I saw them when I was doing the search) and the billboard track listing and clubzone mentions are not enough for the artist to pass the criteria in WP:MUSIC. If you can find good sources on which to base an article, I will promptly withdraw the nomination. nadav (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

“Seaclipse” - the artist that I created an article about meets at least 2 of the listed “Wikipedia” requirements for the “Criteria for musicians and ensembles”.

That criteria being:

(Criteria One)

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

The artist Seaclipse has two nationally released albums that are searchable on all the major online search engines such as “Google”, “Yahoo”, “Ask” and others.

The 2 albums are listed by name and both are searchable online. Those album titles are: (“Seaclipse” released in 2005) and (“Playin with Fire” released in 2006).

The following example is a provided link to the (Two Separate Albums) both listed on Billboard Magazines website: www.billboard.com

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=769156&aid=786124

SEACLIPSE – (Playin With Fire – Album Release in 2006)

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=674244&aid=711127

SEACLIPSE – (Seaclipse – Album Release in 2005) – debut self-titled album.

(Criteria Two)

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Seaclipse is the only Seattle based new hip-hop artist that I’ve been able to do online research and find conclusive and provable connections to, and direct affiliations with other established major record label hip hop artist in the music industry. To name a few of those artists for example: Young Buck of G-Unit, and Bun B of the rap group UGK, both artists are already listed in the “Wikipedia” database.

On Seaclipse official myspace.com page there is undeniable proof and evidence of his industry ties with those other major label artists I listed. Seaclipse has recorded songs with these artists, which makes him the only new artist from the Seattle urban/hip-hop music scene to be connected to other nationally established and notable artist. Under the “Wikipedia” criteria, this would also qualify Seaclipse as a prominent representative of his local scene.

This content is streaming and is playable on his myspace page for anyone to listen to, verifying what I’m saying.

Thanks for your time.

Thebluematrix 13:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — Thebluematrix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sources are Amazon and MySpace. Not reliable or verifiable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC, specifically "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." He has not. His discography at allmusic lists only one album. He has also not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself. He has not had a charted hit on any national music chart. He has not had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. He has not become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. Any claims to the contrary that are only backed up by the artist's MySpace page cannot be considered reliable. DarkAudit 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Completely non-notable. MySpace and Amazon are not acceptable measures for notability, or as sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comments by Thebluematrix

Notability of new artist - as pertaining to the following criteria outlined by wikipedia:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."

DarkAudit stated: "He has not"

I’m sorry but that is incorrect. He has in fact actually released (2 TWO) albums on an important indie label. (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Seaclipse already has (2) TWO nationally distributed albums which were both released on a "Notable Indie Record Label".

The Indie Label is named: Ultrax Records - Based out of Dallas, Texas.

Tommy Quon is the Record Label Owner / Manager of the following signed artists on the label.

Along with his notable label-mates Vanilla Ice, Marcos Hernandez, and others. Seaclipse is also listed as one of the artists signed to Ultrax Records, and managed by Tommy Quon.

The following is a link to the direct source: Ultrax Records

[2] - This is the record label's website, the most verifiable and reliable source relating to the accuracy of SEACLIPSE being on their roster of signed artists.

(The 2 Album Titles): "Seaclipse" and "Playin With Fire" - both albums were released on "Ultrax Records”, during 2005 and 2006.

The following link is the same reliable website source which was used by DarkAudit in claming that there was only (1) album released by this artist when in fact there were (2) albums released. These links provide the proof that these (2) albums were in fact already nationally released on the Ultrax Record Label, a notable indie-label.

Online discography for the artist “SEACLIPSE”

1. Alum title: (self-titled) - “Seaclipse”

[3]

2. Album title: - “Playin With Fire”

[4]

Side Note: (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Other notable artists who are signed to this indie label, and who have also released albums on "Ultrax Records" include the following artists. These artists are already listed with their own articles in the Wikipedia database. If these other artists on Ultrax Records articles were excepted into the Wikipedia database, then arguable so should the article on their label-mate SEACLIPSE.

Artist: Blessid Union of Souls - Album Title: Perception - Ultrax Records

Artist: Marcos Hernandez - Album Title: C About Me - Ultrax Records

Artist: Vanilla Ice - Album Title: Platinum Underground - Ultrax Reords

This is comprehensive evidence of why the SEACLIPSE article should be permitted.

In closing: I have come across other recording artists from the Seattle hip hop music scene just as Seaclipse is from Seattle, As well as other unknown artists from around the world who are currently listed in the wikipedia database with articles. All of which arguably have much less “Notability” then the artist Seaclipse. Especially considering the fact that Seaclipse albums have featured such established and very notable hip hop artist as: Young Buck, Redman, and Bun B, as listed. Whereas in the case of “Boom Bap Project” they have not worked with and/or have any known ties to any notable / major label artists on their albums.

Example: Boom Bap Project

If Seaclipse is to be considered a non-notable artist by wikipedia standards, then arguably shouldn't Boom Bap Project who are also an unknown Seattle based hip-hop group be considered a non-notable group?

If the article on Boom Bap Project was allowed, then why shouldn’t the Seaclipse article be allowed?

That doesn't make sense, and seems very unfair to ask for deletion in just one of these articles and not both.

If anything I think you may agree that the Seaclipse article is in fact more within the wikipedia guidelines then the Boom Bap Project article. So shouldn't the Seaclipse article be allowed to stay if this other article was permitted to exist on wikipedia?

I would think that I've made a valuable point in this matter. And unless we are all willing to be fully fair by nominating the Boom Bap Project article for the same deletion, then this would seem completely unbalanced in having only the Seaclipse article deleted.

Thank you all for your time and for considering what I’ve said. Thebluematrix 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. The Boom Bap Project article has no bearing on the suitablity of this article. The label is very borderline, the article itself doesn't claim much, and nothing can be verified by unbiased, independent sources. Bongwarrior 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Comparing Seaclipse with the Boom Bap Project is quite a conceit. The label they're on, Rhymesayers, is in reality one of the more important indie hip hop labels releasing underground hip hop. Ultrax does not rate on a scale of important indie labels at all. "Well-funded" with all that old Vanilla Ice money, perhaps, but not "important". (That said, the BBP article could use some work.) Closenplay 11:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I made some necessary changes to the seaclipse article, it should not be deleted.

Question?

Bongwarrior, what justifies you say "The label is very borderline"? What qualifications do you have that would make you an expert source on which record labels are of great notability?

Have you even done any research on the label in question or are you just stating your opinion?

If you read what I wrote, then you must have seen that I did my part in providing links to reliable sources for which I based the creation of the artists article.

Instead, all you seemed to focus on is the fact that I used a similar example of an article already in existence on wikipedia. This was just to show the inclusion of an article with similar circumstances, and which was already excepted by wikipedia.

But back to the label statement you made. Is this is just your opinion or are you basing it in actual fact? If so please provide me with hard evidence of the fact that "The label is very borderline". And if I'm wrong. On what basis are you qualified over anyone else to say something like "The label is very borderline"?

I presented real proof of other notable artist on this particular indie label. So what I'm trying to understand is with what reasoning do you get to be an authority figure in this matter, verses the actual proof that I provided which suggests different from what you've said.

I gave a legitimate example as well as provided links proving otherwise, and all you did was deflect from what I said by using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. That was not the point I was making.

Thebluematrix 08:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not an authority on anything, nor do I claim to be. I said the label was borderline because it is borderline. The guideline in question, quoted from WP:MUSIC: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) (my emphasis). It appears that only a few would be considered notable per WP:MUSIC. Hence, it's a borderline label. Bongwarrior 09:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failing teh WP:BAND. The only source is to the record label page, which itself has only two notable artists thus making it borderline at best per Bongwarrior. No assertion of notability, no back-up on working with all the people he's supposed to have. tomasz. 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Getting Redman to guest on a track is a good start towards notability but my man ain't there yet. Signing up on a label with a buncha might-bes and a couple of has-beens isn't gonna help, though. I did find another reference you might use though. Las Vegas Weekly went to a showcase and rated the acts' chances of success. Seaclipse got "mild". Closenplay 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete References while plentiful are all from sources which are either (a) trivial or (b) likely to be self-written. As such fails central criteria of WP:Music which is to have multiple non-trivial third party references. A1octopus 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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.