Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuco (musician)


 * 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 move to draft space. The draft can be found at Draft:Cuco (musician). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Cuco (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON article about a person who does not yet have any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are a viral video on YouTube, and that he just signed to a record label a few weeks ago -- but having views on social media is not a notability criterion in and of itself, and getting signed to a label is not an instant notability pass for a musician who has not yet released any recorded music on said label. And for sourcing, what we have is one short blurb supporting the signing, one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being written about in the third person, and just one piece that's actually substantive enough to count as a data point toward NMUSIC #1. No prejudice against recreation in the future when he actually has a hit single for NMUSIC #2 and/or two full-length albums for NMUSIC #5 under his belt, but he's not entitled to already have an article in advance of actually achieving anything that would actually pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

KEEP He's got multiple articles about him in mainstream venues. it's not up to wikipedia to decide whether someone's accomplishments are notable. We just report on whether people have been declared notable by the mainstream press. Cuco clearly has been.NoahB (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, there are lots more articles about him:

https://www.complex.com/music/2018/04/cuco-who-is https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9k945v/cuco-is-las-new-romantic-and-hes-only-18 https://tealmagazine.com/articles/interview-with-cuco

Again, the press thanks he's worth talking about. It's 2019; releasing recorded music on an official label shouldn't be the bar for notability now, if it ever was. NoahB (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Releasing music on an official label is not the only way that a musician can become notable enough for a Wikipedia article; there have been artists who released their music independently, but still got over other NMUSIC criteria with it anyway. But for an artist who has signed to a major label, the release of some actual music on that label is still a base requirement, and merely signing does not constitute a free notability pass in and of itself for a musician who has released absolutely nothing under that contract yet. Musical notability for Wikipedia's purposes requires some form of measurable accomplishment, such as having a hit single or releasing a number of albums or touring, and is not automatically extended to every musician who merely exists but has no quantifiable achievements to measure against NMUSIC at all. "It's 2019" is not a valid argument against the existence of notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, we've got multiple major mainstream news sites doing extended profiles of him, and the existence of a seven figure record deal is notable in itself. You don't think the person should be notable; mainstream sites like NPR and Rolling Stone and Vice disagree. You think there shouldn't be coverage unless someone has released music on a label; again, major mainstream sites disagree.I still don't see why it's Wikipedia's job to erase artists who have been covered in mainstream outlets because we think they don't deserve the attention or some such.NoahB (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying "there is not enough substance to say about him for a Wikipedia article to be warranted yet" is not the same thing as saying that he somehow doesn't "deserve any attention" — TOOSOON does not mean "never", it just means "not yet". The very reason we have notability standards for musicians, which measure quantifiable achievements and not just verification that the musician exists, is precisely that we don't want to just have to keep an article about every single musician who exists on earth — we want to keep articles about musicians who have achieved notable things in their careers, not just everybody who merely aspires to. Even Beyoncé, in fact, was once an aspiring musician who would not have qualified for an article yet if Wikipedia had existed at the time — once she did achieve something noteworthy, obviously that would have changed, but before she had actually achieved anything would have been TOOSOON. Signing to a record label is not a Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself: NMUSIC only invokes record labels in the context of releasing music on the label, and does not extend an automatic inclusion freebie on the basis of merely signing a contract. Lots of artists in history have signed major label contracts, but then gotten dropped before they actually accomplished anything on that label: so being on a major label is only relevant to musical notability insofar as it actually results in albums, singles and/or concert tours, and merely signing the contract is not an instant pass to notability all by itself. And as for the sources: Q&A interviews like your NPR, Complex and Teal Magazine links, in which the subject is speaking about himself in the first person, are not support for notability. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources — but to count as support for his basic notability in the first place, a source has to represent other people writing or speaking about him in the third person. Very short blurbs, similarly, are not support for notability: they can, again, be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has been already covered off by stronger sources, but to count as support for his basic notability a source has to be substantive and not just a short blurb. As of right now, the only source we actually have that is both substantive and third person is the Rolling Stone "how a band geek became a heartthrob" — but one substantive source is not enough to claim that a musician passes NMUSIC #1 in lieu of actually achieving anything relevant to NMUSIC #2-12. I said right from the beginning that there was no prejudice against recreating the article at a later date once he's actually achieved something relevant to our notability criteria for musicians, like touring or having a hit single or releasing two full albums — but merely signing to a major label does not pass NMUSIC all by itself if he hasn't done anything under that contract yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a lot of words to say you don't think that mainstream venues should be covering him yet. But they are. Rather than trying to erase that, we should be neutral, and just accurately cite what they say.NoahB (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. "Mainstream venues should not be covering him yet" is not what I said, it's not what I meant, and it's not what I think — but the context of what they're covering him for is not relevant to whether he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. They're covering him solely in the context of being a young musician who aspires to make it in the future, not in the context of having achieved anything yet. The existence of one or two pieces of media coverage is not always automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — if it were, we would have to keep articles about my mother's neighbour who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard, unsuccessful candidates in city council elections, winners of high school poetry contests, and me — rather, we also test for the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and defer the creation of an article to a later date if there isn't a noteworthy achievement for our article to document yet. That's not a criticism of Cuco as a person, or of the media for covering him: the guy just hasn't done anything relevant to our notability criteria for musicians yet. Maybe in six months he will — that's great, and that's when a Wikipedia article will become warranted. But one substantive piece about him, paired with Q&A interviews and short blurbs, does not equal "a Wikipedia article needs to already exist today even if he hasn't actually accomplished anything noteworthy yet". Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the NPR piece has a lengthy intro, the Complex piece is not a Q&A. A report on his signing is also substantive. There is plenty of information about him from mainstream sources, which is why there are multiple citations in the article. In the time it's taken you to spin out hundreds of words here, you could have added links, resources and expanded the article. It's super frustrating to try to include information that is quite widely discussed on mainstream sites, only to have a deletion notice put up almost instantly. it really discourages new and infrequent users. NoahB (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Complex piece is a Q&A: the text portion of it is a short prefatory blurb, while the substance of the link is an eight-minute YouTube video which is a Q&A interview featuring him talking about himself. The report on his signing is a blurb. The NPR piece is a Q&A interview, and Q&A interviews always feature short introductions to set up the context before the questions start — so a Q&A interview is not exempted from the problems with Q&A interviews just because a short preface is there, because a short preface is always there in all Q&A interviews. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Move to draft space The sources rolling Stone shows that the subject is notable. An article should be developed, but for now I agree with the nominator that it is WP:TOOSOON. When the unequivocal GNG of the subject is there - the article will be ready.  Lubbad85   (☎) 17:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify WP:TOOSOON and discussion shows editor needs to review Wikipedia policies on notability. – The Grid  ( talk )  19:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree in principle with the TOO:SOON arguments (in the unlikely event his much hyped release tanks and we never hear from the guy again) and if Draftifying this while it is improved is a solution, so be it. But GNG is established with mainstream coverage ramping up in anticipation of this release, enough to meet GNG. In addition to those cited already, there are lengthy significant third party write ups in Teen Vogue, California Sunday , and LA Times, among others. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the nom. Falls under WP:TOOSOON, but can be recreated if he indeed becomes notable down the road. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify WP:TOOSOON. Masum Reza 📞 06:01, 26 June 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.