Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Star Cashville Prince (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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. Although I vehemently disagree with the interpretation of GNG that is being applied here, I can't see continuing this AfD much longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All Star Cashville Prince
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previously deleted article. Speedy was declined. Has been tagged for notability for over a year. Simply, the artists fails WP:MUSICBIO. He's never had a charting song and lacks coverage in the media. The authors provides a one off article in the NYT, but I don't believe that is enough. The article was from nearly 2 years ago, talking about how this artist is hoping be the "next big thing". 2 years later, he still hasn't charted. The rest of the sources fail WP:RS. Aside from the one article, there isn't really coverage by the media. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Most of the article is written as if it is a press release. Artist pretty easily fails WP:MUSIC. Sure, there's a New York Times article, but it only discusses the subject's inability to become notable. As the nom mentioned, the rest of the sources are not reliable ones. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well ironically, in trying to point out his non-notability, they established the opposite. Handschuh-talk to me 07:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that. Can you explain how a one time piece in the NYT, 2 years ago, about how the guy has not become successful yet make him notable? Particularly when we see that 2 years later, he still hasn't don't anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant enough coverage to meet the GNG. "Notable" is not the same as "successful," otherwise we should delete Detroit Lions, Ned Lamont, and Ishtar (irony alert). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When did One article in a reliable source become sufficient coverage to meet GNG? As for lack of success, for musicians, they need some success. He're released no albums (let alone charted). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One article by a reliable source giving significant coverage has always been sufficient coverage to meet GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Though I'd love to say Delete on the grounds that the article is a load of rubbish, unfortunately it does seem that the subject is moderately notable, therefore I have to say Keep. Deb (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, I fail to see where one article about how he hasn't been successful equals notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The New York Times article is very significant coverage, thus satisfying WP:GNG. As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said, "notable" and "successful" are not the same thing. Someone can be "unsuccessful" and still be "notable."--Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GNG says reliable sources. It points out that multiple sources are preferred. You folks are saying that a single article, just one article, in a RS is sufficient to make a person notable. Doesn't that strike anyone besides me as not being the intent of GNG? I can't believe that the intent of GNG was to say that everyone who is the subject of an article in any newspaper is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The intent of GNG is that a topic has received significant coverage from reliable sources. As to your erroneous requirement that sources must be "multiple," WP:GNG states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources" and as you admitted, "Multiple sources are generally preferred," not "required." The quality of the source The New York Times is undeniable and the depth of coverage is sufficient.  Of course it uses the plural "sources", so as not to confuse editors to seem coverage is restricted to one source.  If more than one source was required, it would explicitly state "multiple sources."--Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, did you even read what I wrote? I very clearly said "It points out that multiple sources are preferred". For you to claim that I stated an "erroneous requirement" can only be explained by lack of attention or knowingly making a false accusation. I'll leave it to you to decide which it was. I never made the claim that multiple sources was a requirement. I said PREFERRED (maybe in caps you'll see it this time) very clearly. So let me ask those voting keep a very direct question: Are you stating that in your view a single article in a newspaper always makes someone notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd say a featured profile in what's arguably the most significant newspaper in the United States at the very least gives rise to a presumption of notability (as would a similar article in the leading newspaper in other major national markets); and in the absence of any substantive arguments otherwise, the presumption should stand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2nd what HW said. --Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may have been what you meant Oakshade (I'll AGF), but it is not what you said in your keep !vote. You said "One article by a reliable source giving significant coverage has always been sufficient coverage to meet GNG". If we apply what you said, anyone covered in an article by any reliable source newspaper, which almost every local newspaper passes, would pass GNG and be notable enough for an article. For both of you, the talk about which paper it is in is really a smokescreen. Either a source is reliable or it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Niteshade mentioned this on my talk page. Though not my subject, I think Niteshade is partially right: one article is not normally enough for WP:GNG; however, it is  if   it is in a exceptionally reliable source--reliable not just for accuracy, but for responsible editorial policies about covering what is important. I would think the NYT is an example of one such--and most especially when they devote a full feature article to the subject as they did here.    DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, Niteshift....lol. Anyway, I'll share what I just said on your page here before I close what appears to be a keep. First, let's use WP:MUSICBIO as an example. Criteria #1 is that the artist be the subject of multiple published works. That criteria seems totally illogical if we are to follow the idea that a single published work is sufficient under GNG. Second, the idea of a single work being sufficient under GNG in this case seems to be at odds with WP:BLP1E. If 10 different reporters, from 10 different papers write about someone doing something, we delete it under BLP1E (a policy I support). In the case of the Cash Prince, the article is about no event, yet you feel it falls under GNG. If we apply GNG in the same manner to regular bios, most should never be deleted because they were covered in a reliable source. The fact that it is one event shouldn't matter because they get in under GNG. Lastly, as I also said, this appears to be WP:ILIKEIT once removed. The fact that just one reporter (from which paper should have no bearing on it, reliable is reliable) from one paper decided he/she has enough interest in the artist, the person automatically becomes notable under this application of GNG. I find it very difficult to believe this was what was intended when GNG was written. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (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.