Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Skitz


 * 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DJ Skitz

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I believe that since this artist is a DJ, the correct measuring stick here would indeed be WP:MUSICBIO. I believe the subject falls short of meeting this, despite the fact some refer to him as “legendary”. He may be locally popular, but is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Brief review of sources listed:


 * 1; bbc interview, 41/2 yrs ago, talks about himself (POB, influences, hobbie,etc)
 * 2; Australia tour dates.
 * 3; interview with another artist, Roots Manuva, who mentions Skitz in passing.
 * 4; trivial mention in story about new station geared for black audience in UK.
 * 5; show dates and venues
 * 6; article about top clubs, trivial mention of subject
 * 7-13;album reviews by some ok websites but also some iffy sites that seem to be non-consequential or notable.

WP:MUSICBIO # 1 is not met because most coverage is trivial “Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates…”, and the one that is significant (source #1) is where the musician talks about himself; directly disqualified per musicbio # 1. I see no evidence presented to meet WP:MUSICBIO #2 - # 12. It also does not help that the subject created his own record label, hence is in effect self-published, and his music consists of mostly remixes. Turqoise 127  19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I will give it there is a decent amount of ref's, they just are not quality. It is super short, and has not been expanded it looks like since the article was created over a year ago. Subject does not appear notable enough for an article.-- Navy Blue84  20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment so should we delete any stub that hasn't been expanded in a year? SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I consider WP:MUSICBIO # 1 to be met, this interview with Resident Advisor is probably the most mainstream direct coverage of him but the other reviews of his first album are also in the mainstream press demonstrating notability. These clearly demonstrate that there have been "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" as required for inclusion. I believe the nominator is mistaken that source where "the musician talks about himself" are not suitable to meet MUSICBIO #1 since the interviews are conducted by reliable sources, rather than the artist themself. The MUSICBIO #7 is a bit unclear, but I think it would be fair to say the reviews (and not just from the time the album was released) indicate he was "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". This source (not used) this (not used at the moment) and this (used) provide non-trivial reliable coverage of an international tour (MUSICBIO #4) (particularly the second link). This obviously makes the nominators suggestion that he may only be "locally popular" to be inaccurate. The claim that his music is self published is also incorrect, the first album was released on Ronin Records and the most recent on Dragon Drop, Titan Sounds is a label he started as a producer to release other people's work on. Similarly, his work does not consist of remixes (not that that would make a difference anyway) but he was the producer of his first album (maybe I hadn't made this clear in the article, but I'll try to clarify this soon). SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now added a reference I found from Billboard (magazine) which discusses him in depth. There are also hits in google books from The Wire (magazine) but they are not accessible. SmartSE (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also got a hit from the LA Times: which I'll try to get hold of. SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it it calls him "a prominent British hip-hop DJ". Although it isn't about him, the artists the reporter quotes are all featured on his album released earlier that year. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. persuasive view of sources listed and per falling short of WP:MUSICBIO. I do not see it satisfied. This is a borderline article, but a BLP.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note WildHorsesPulled stated in this deletion review last week that they would like to seek "retribution" for my nomination of an article that was deleted, and the nominator (who had authored the article in question) agreed that it would be "fun" to do so. Take from that what you wish. SmartSE (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please comment on content, not on conduct, Smartse. I think Horses was speaking hypothetically, “what if someone were to do that, it would be unfair just like in that case…”. Do re-read that statement. Me, on the other hand, I was just going through your contributions (as you had stated when you went through PamelaBMX contributions) and I found this marginal addition to the project. And, just like you had stated, I assure you, I am acting in good faith. Your vehement lengthy defense of this article indicates some possible WP:OWNERSHIP issues… Respectfully, Turqoise 127  01:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Lengthy"? "Vehement"? "Respectfully"? Ever the comedian. Bongo  matic  04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is better, but I still have my doubts on notability. It is longer and has more ref's and at least one really reliable one. So I am ready to support it being Kept.-- Navy Blue84  02:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor Smartse is canvassing of sorts, leaving notes on "delete" voters talk pages and asking to reconsider... This in itself speaks volumes. Even after the vote change, editor Navyblue wisely has doubts on notability. You worked hard, Smartse, great effort, but sources you added are merely more of -the same. Are we to include every nightclub DJ of every nation on the project? They will all have a fair amount of local sources... Turqoise 127  04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just notified Navy blue84 that I had substantially expanded the article since they commented, which is entirely appropriate per WP:CANVAS. Turq - have you checked the article since I expanded it? This DJ is not simply a "nightclub DJ" but presented a national radio show for 5 years as well as receiving press coverage in American magazines and newspapers (not local sources, by any stretch of the imagination). SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete Weak keep . Fails applicable notability guidelines. Comment refactored to reflect sources added since last review (time of notability tagging). Billboard reference provides reasonably in-depth coverage, other passing mentions of the artist suggest some degree of lasting importance influence / relevance . Bongo  matic  03:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Underlining your vote does not make your argument stronger. Turqoise 127  04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Underlining denotes text inserted from the original, while strike-through denotes text deleted from the original. It is not a form of emphasis, but a means of indicating changes from one version to another. Bongo  matic  07:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: To clarify, I don't believe SmartSE was canvasing. As to SmartSE's comment on my talk page, I was not offically changing my !vote. I was stating that I could back the article being kept and not deleted. But, I still believe that the subject is not notable enough. Billboard does stuff on a lot of indie artis' and they don't all deserve an article. I still believe the article should not be kept, but if it is, then I don't see any issues with it.-- Navy Blue84  00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is hardly a field I am expert in,  so I'm commenting on the basis of some criteria I  think I do understand. . First, a BLP that is borderline or non consensus closes the same as any other article, with the single exception that if it is borderline and  the subject has made a request for deletion, then this can optionally be taken into account--but even then it does not have to be. Anyway, that is not the case here. Second, Billboard is the usual RS to show notability for film and popular music when the coverage is a full article--as it is here. The awards for his work seem significant also, and, given these awards, the only thing that puzzles me is that we do not have an article on Countryman   DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Hardly a household name, but for me the sources now included in the article are reliable, independent and non-trivial and therefore show that WP:MUSIC is met. Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 08:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The notability guidelines could be said to serve two purposes: making sure we have enough coverage to write a verifiable article and that we are not just collecting data indiscriminately. The guy has clearly some reputation and the article is fully verifiable so I see no reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:43, 22 November 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.