Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cade Thompson


 * 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. Consensus is sourcing is not sufficient. Star  Mississippi  03:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Cade Thompson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- and the only referencing is his music metaverifying its own existence on CDBaby, YouTube or user-generated lyrics databases, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are automatically entitled to have articles just because their music exists: the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in media, verifying that he passes one or more notability criteria (charting hits, playlisting, touring, etc.), but nothing here passes either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete found a few promotional fluff pieces from Christian Beat, and mentions in articles about the label, but that's it. Clear WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fluff or vanity spam, not seeing notability as described above. Just about anyone can "release" an album on any one of the streaming media sites, it has to have traction in the media or chart or something else to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thompson has been in news articles and his music is played on K-Love which is the biggest CCM music radio station in the united states. Cherrell410 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Q&A interviews, in which he's talking about himself in the first person, do not count as notability-building sources. Blogs do not count as notability-building sources. His own marketing materials do not count as notability-building sources. Media coverage, in which he's being discussed in the third person by real professional journalists and/or music critics in real media outlets, is what's required. Bearcat (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here Cherrell410 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here what? Even if we accept that as counting for something (which is debatable at best), it still takes four or five pieces like that, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cherrell410 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Cherrell410 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cherrell410 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're really not getting what's being said to you. "Newreleasetoday" is a marketing platform, not a reliable or notability-supporting media source. "Red Street Records" is his own record label, not a reliable or notability-supporting media source. College or university radio stations like Life 96.5 are not reliable or notability-supporting sources; WP:NMUSIC explicitly says that college/university student media is not admissible for establishing the notability of a musician. Very short blurbs that convey very little meaningful information, and instead mostly just quote his own press releases about himself verbatim, are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. It's already been explained to you that Q&A interviews, in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and blogs are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. All of which means that absolutely none of these links are reliable or notability-supporting sources, because every single one of them is one of those things.
 * Please learn what constitutes reliable sourcing for Wikipedia and what does not, because having to repeatedly explain to you why the sources you're using aren't acceptable is getting tiresome. You are not showing the depth or type of sourcing that needs to be shown to establish notability, and just trying to bludgeon this discussion with more bad sources is not going to help anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (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.