Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Metaphor (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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Metaphor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It most possibly lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep it already has references to reliable sources such as The Source and music genre specific sources such as XXL Magazine. It was approved in January 2015 through the AFC process. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no reliable source linked to the person, making it unsourced. The Source and XXL are lowered besides reliable, but the others aren't highly known. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the sources cited are trivial mentions, or are interviews, which are considered primary sources.  "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", per  WP:BASIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment he has been signed to a major record label Warner/Chappell Music since 2012, the Source is rs as are others. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The criteria in WP:MUSICBIO states: "has released two or more albums on a major record label". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO is only a guideline, he seems to have produced a significant number of songs on albums released by a major label ,and to have produced charting songs so he seems to meet the spirit of the guideline rather than the exact letter of it. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Um...if it's "only a guideline", why would you care if you "meet the spirit" of it, or any part of it? I mean, it's only a guideline.  It's just a wet paint sign, I can touch the wall if I want to, but maybe I'll just touch a tiny part of it, in case it's wet paint.  Magnolia677 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete pending better evidence of solidly, independent third party sources. The ones here all have compromised merit. Just to be featured in The Source (ref. 5) is not automatically indicative of third party coverage. A respectable publication, yes. But it is also an arm of a music marketing/branding parent company, which, among other things, generates press for it’s clients to be featured in The Source and its other properties. (see: http://www.thenorthstargroup.biz ).


 * XXL and HipHop87 (refs. 1,2,6) can be misleading, as both are chock full of legitimate coverage. Yet they become compromised in their free solicitation of content (see: http://www.xxlmag.com/submission-guidelines/ and http://hiphopsince1987.com/contact/ ), opening the door for professional promotional agencies to submit work for consideration, making it difficult to accurately vet because of varying standards from one publication to the next. I’m not entirely sure of these two—and if I’m wrong I’m wrong—but my experience recognizes the subtleties of promotional hype when I see it. (I worked in music marketing/promotion in the 90’s—and while the technology has changed over the decades, the general nature of the work hasn’t. If you truly know what you are doing a well aimed pitch usually results in a magazine hungry for content to let you write an article about your client.)
 * World Star Hip Hop (ref. 4) simply posts the submissions it accepts. And ref. 3 is trivial.  And I’m also not sure what to make of the claimed connection to Warners/Chappell and other major labels as a sign of notability. Based on his work history up to the present it seems the connection is through the artist he is producing rather than a personal association. So I think this is trying to make a WP:NOTABILITY CONFERRED claim. We’ve seen so many of these “(fill in the blank artist name) was signed by (fill in major record label)” in AFD only to find upon investigation that it is something considerably less, but sure looks good on a resume! Looking over this subject’s bio it’s easy to imagine that is the case, but I may be wrong. The specifics may be in one of these interviews, although, as mentioned, those are unverifiable first person sources.  Anyway, give me better sources, and I’ll gladly change my vote to keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. ShelbyMarion's arguments carry the issue for me. Also, Danitha Jones' piece in The Source is an interview, which is a primary source, not suitable for establishing notability. Same with Ralph Bristout's piece in XXL. The guideline at MUSICBIO says that we should not rely on sources "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources available are too trivial to count toward significant coverage. An interview cannot be reliable as the most extensive source because, as Binksternet explained, we cannot rely primarily on instances where the musician talks about himself/herself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2016 (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.