Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-Nasty


 * 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. Analysis of the sources by multiple editors lead to a consensus that, despite a superficially large number of sources, there is not enough actual, in-depth independent coverage to demonstrate notability by Wikipedia's standards. A reliable article cannot be produced from promotional material, and the vast majority of the offered sources are nothing more than that; a consensus of all editors in this discussion other than the article creator and primary contributor supports its deletion. ~ mazca  talk 15:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

B-Nasty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion for non notable rapper. No good charting. No gold. No national rotation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking closely at some of the sources used.

21. Reviewindie. Who? "We want to give Indie artists a new promotion vehicle that will get fans talking." . So not an independent reliable source. The article itself reads like pure PR. "In addition to her vocal gifts, the song showcases her exceptional lyrical phrasing, stylistic uniqueness and a truly catchy melody and rhythmic undertones." , Posted April 18, 2016 by Peter Burns. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON APRIL 17, 2016. Even has the same formatting error at the start. Also appears at Tunedloud, by Staff April 20, 2016.

22. Jamsphere. The article itself reads like pure PR. "I doubt anybody else raps like this in Australia and if anybody else ever will." , Posted By: Rick Jamm Posted date: December 30, 2015. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 31, 2015 and Reviewindie, Posted December 31, 2015 by Peter Burns. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

23. Soundlooks. The article itself reads like pure PR. "His lyricism, flow, wordplay and meter is on point. At the same time, he is a master of delivery, groaning his braggadocio tropes in a charismatic and powerfully layered rasp with a practiced blend of bravado, world-weariness and posturing idiosyncrasies." , BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 10, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere, Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: December 10, 2016 and Reviewindie, Posted December 10, 2016 by Peter Burns and Tunedloud, by Staff December 10, 2016. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

18. Tunedloud. The article itself reads like pure PR. "Arguably the face of Australian Hip Hop’s present indie momentum, B-Nasty’s command of musical time is apparent; he can flow over anything. Depending on the mood, he can almost always adapt to the music, even if the final product isn’t the most remarkable. Just capturing the vibe is sufficient for him to kill it." , by Staff June 9, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: June 09, 2016 and Soundlooks BY JEENA JOHNSON ON JUNE 9, 2016 and Reviewindie Posted June 10, 2016 by Peter Burns. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

24. Amnplify. by the Australian Musician Network. they say they are "one of Australia’s leading music content websites that provides promotional services to musicians, bands, events, and music festivals around the country and artists worldwide.". They offer multiple services, such as Albumn reviews for $100. . So this is a paid for review, not independent coverage.

Other coverage is the artist talking about himself, press releases, listings, primary, blog and shops. Sources that don't back up claims made. There is a lack of anything that is good for GNG or NMUSIC. Pure PR backed by PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, out of the 24 references that you chose to raise this debate you have missed the notable press about this artist The Music, X-Press Magazine and scenestr all three are recognised national magazines within Australia. Also on a seperate note those other citations where used to be able to show the artists singles and album that he released. Obvious bias but i'm for a strong keep. The artist has also worked with multple international and national acts, and also is Wu-Tang clan affiliate. if it is determined to delete, I would like it go back to a draft/stub. as this article was already "reviewed" from a draft state and was then made a start article. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Passportgang (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't miss all of them. The Music does many things. One of those things is to publish press releases as they have done here. You can also find the same article here. And it's not exactly significant coverage. Xpress (not national) is just B-Nasty talking about himself, not independent coverage. So that leaves one local street press article and they are largely PR services for local scenes containing a lot of indiscriminate coverage. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you, in my option The Music is independent and a reliable source. it seems to me that oztix just mirrors the site for news. and now that we are talking about oztix? is that not notable? Let's be honest that is notable in its own right?! Passportgang (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - if this article is deleted, sub-articles and misc to be deleted include B-Nasty videography, B-Nasty discography, Category:B-Nasty, and Template:B-Nasty. To say I am concerned about COI and the promotional nature of these articles would be an understatement.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – paucity of independent reliable sources, indicate subject does not qualify at NMUSIC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment/Stub This article was reviewed already from a draft state, i'm more then happy to come to a "resolution" of a stub article, but I do believe the artist to be notable. " multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." also "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" Passportgang (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He Has NOT become one of the most prominent representatives ... And that false claim is not supported. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete nothing on Soundcloud or Spotify. Fails WP:BAND and WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO. Both the category and discography needs to go a well. Completely non notable.  scope_creep Talk  10:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment/Debate I don't want to be rude but did you even google the artist? There is a knowledge box on google that links all of the streaming link, such as YouTube, Spotify, Google Music, Deezer, Soundcloud and a Verified Facebook account. And as I've stated it does not fail WP:NMUSIC in my opinion, maybe yours. but since you didn't even google the artist, I think the administrator that reads this should Nil your vote. on a seperate note on the original post "No national rotation" The artists latest single was also distributed through Amrap's Airlt, so in my opinion that would classify as national rotation. Passportgang (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is some social media links, streaming links, but insufficient to establish WP:NMUSIC. There needs to be sustained coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, a significant number of plays on music sites like Spotify. 250k listeners is a typical figure for signed bands. For social media 250k fans a typical number that seems to be the standard on Wikipedia. The subject satisfies none of that. He is completely non-notable. So the disco, the cats and the article has to go. I know it is difficult when your article gets deleted. My first article was deleted. I know how it feels.  scope_creep Talk  20:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "there is some social media links, streaming links" That is wrong, if you see the references that are on the article that might help. now if regards to the 250k listeners/fans. we are talking about an Australian artist here not an American. I would make a point to see the other australian artists within the category of hip hop / rappers. as i've stated before I am happy for the article to become a STUB removing the disc and the cat but I believe it still hits notability with WP:SIGCOV, especially since the artist has worked with prominent artists within hip hip, and has the press/articles to back it up! Yes, I will admit its a sting that my debut article is up for deletion, however I believe my debate is firm especially after the points I have made further up. Passportgang (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Post three good references here per WP:THREE and let the good folks of Wikipedia have a look. Working with other prominent music artist has no meaning. The person must have stand-alone notability.   scope_creep Talk  09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I appreciate you engaging with me! The Music National Magazine also has a Wikipedia Article, National Magazine , National Magazine . These are the best articles on the artist. What will be great about this discussion is to find out for "Australian" artists what is classified as notable?! Because if we look at the category of Australian rappers these magazines have been used as references. And yes your latter point I do agree with, and I understand. Passportgang (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not anywhere enough for a BLP article that must satisfy WP:ANYBIO. One is name drop and other one is a mention of a mix tape. Non-notable.  scope_creep Talk  14:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And one is an album review? I guess the question is what will satisfy WP:ANYBIO for an Australian artist, and what are acceptable? Just ARIA articles? WAM Articles? I need to know this information before even trying to create another article. Passportgang (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above that album review is paid for, not an independent source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have gone through archive.org since I do believe Amnplify did not provide those services back when the review was published, tbh that's why I used it for the article, I have provided the link here. . It seems to be a recent addition, possibly to raise funds. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've gone through all the cited references and unfortunately I can't find anything that sufficiently addresses any of the criteria under WP:NMUSICIAN. The majority of the references provided are either from questionable sources (such as Setlist.fm, iTunes, Musicbrainz, Discogs etc) or primary sources (such as Doughboyproductions) or reproductions of press releases (such as Unearthed, RTRFM). Even the Triple J unearthed chart doesn't indicate that he received any airplay on Triple J or Triple J unearthed. I think that it may be best moved to draft and when more reliable sources can be found then be re-assessed. Dan arndt (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the above, I do believe the article is stub worthy, however, more then happy to concede for the article to go back to a draft. I would like your opinion on the matter. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with it going back to draft. There is insufficient sources to support such a move. The articles subject started his career in 2007 and still not notable, 12 years later, so putting it to draft will just waste more time for other editors. If you need a hand to determine what constitutes article for a musician, I can give you a hand.    scope_creep Talk  18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree about it not going back to draft. Years ago when I first started editing I created an article on a little known rapper from Perth and had to argue and fight with editors, who had much more experience than I did, to have the article retained. That article was Drapht and I'm glad that I stuck to my guns. It took Drapht eight years before he received national recognition. Now I'm not saying that B-Nasty will receive the same level of notability as Drapht. However in this case allowing the article to revert back to a draft is not going to hurt anyone and in the fullness of time may be able to demonstrate B-Nasty is notable (or possibly not). Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that is actually really dope! I might actually be able to pick your brain about a few things! Yeah, Drapht did start off quite small but then blew up nationally! Dare I say Internationally! I remember articles of Drapht in TheMusic Amplify & X-Press Magazine. I guess what I'm really trying to say, what is notable press for an Australian hip hop artist?! I mean he has worked with Wu-Tang and also a few other notable artists. I know that it does not transfer however in the scope of Australian artists how do we confirm?! Is it only Aria charted artists? but I appreciate the Draft vote. Passportgang (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2019 (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.