Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soz (rapper)
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. Eluchil404 07:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Soz (rapper)
Rapper with a very weak claim of notabilty, only one album which didn't chart, fails WP:MUSIC otherwise, prod removed Delete --This is a Secret account 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Appears not to meet WP:MUSIC. --Malcolmxl5 01:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete In Soz's defense, I would like to point out that the article asserts two albums (The Initiative & The Secret Agenda) and an EP. :) That said, there's still not a strong assertion of notability here and no verification of it. The releases do not seem to be on notable labels, and there's astonishingly little press about them, given the line-up of guest stars on his first album. I've spent some time google-trawling, looking for reliable sources, and there just don't seem to be any other than the slim ones already incorporated in the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. As much as I hate going through C:CSD and finding hundreds of bands, rappers, and other musicians who don't belong here, I disagree that the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Specifically, I think he meets the first (mention in published works), possibly the fourth (touring), possibility the sixth (significant association with notable musicians), and arguably the eleventh (exposure). Only one needs to be met. Tijuana Brass 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)- Comment: worthy of note, the policy does specify that "conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." That said, I'm not sure that the article does meet any of them. Specifically, criterion 1 indicates "multiple non-trivial published works". I don't see that criterion made. Billboard is a mirror of AMG. That leaves two: the San Mateo Daily Journal and a magazine article that is not verifiable. This doesn't strike me as "multiple non-trivial published works". Touring requires a national or international tour; there's no assertion of that (so possibly #4 means also possibly not—and regardless, it's not verified); 6th does not says "significant association with" but "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". #11—maybe—but it's lacking verification. And that's the most compelling problem. As WP:MUSIC says, "to meet Wikipedia:Attribution, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability". Where are the reliable sources? I can't find them, and I have spent a good bit of time looking. Unless somebody does, the article doesn't pass muster. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm ...after checking it over again, I've got to concede that I was wrong. I mistook the Billboard reference as an article, and after spending a little bit longer trying to verify some of the other claims, I'm coming up empty too. Delete it. Last time I try to defend a white rapper. Tijuana Brass 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! Some of them surely qualify. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm ...after checking it over again, I've got to concede that I was wrong. I mistook the Billboard reference as an article, and after spending a little bit longer trying to verify some of the other claims, I'm coming up empty too. Delete it. Last time I try to defend a white rapper. Tijuana Brass 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: worthy of note, the policy does specify that "conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." That said, I'm not sure that the article does meet any of them. Specifically, criterion 1 indicates "multiple non-trivial published works". I don't see that criterion made. Billboard is a mirror of AMG. That leaves two: the San Mateo Daily Journal and a magazine article that is not verifiable. This doesn't strike me as "multiple non-trivial published works". Touring requires a national or international tour; there's no assertion of that (so possibly #4 means also possibly not—and regardless, it's not verified); 6th does not says "significant association with" but "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". #11—maybe—but it's lacking verification. And that's the most compelling problem. As WP:MUSIC says, "to meet Wikipedia:Attribution, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability". Where are the reliable sources? I can't find them, and I have spent a good bit of time looking. Unless somebody does, the article doesn't pass muster. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:13, 16 November 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.
