Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G Smith


 * 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. Ignoring the non-policy WP:TNT arguments, we have one !vote that amounts to "not notable" and two !voters who argue that this is a notable musician and that the article can be fixed. Since even the nominator admits that this can be recreated, I don't see a convincing rationale for deletion.  So Why  08:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

David G Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC aren't strong enough to withstand everything that's wrong with the article. Overall this is very strongly dependent on YouTube videos, primary sources and blogs that cannot assist notability (there was also some WP:CIRCULAR referencing to other Wikipedia articles, although I've already stripped that) — and while there is some reliable sourcing sprinkled in amid the junk, by far the majority of it is purely local coverage in either his original hometown or the city where he's based now, not successfully demonstrating that he's known much beyond the purely local scene. Chart success is on a non-IFPI certified WP:BADCHART, not on one that can confer notability per NMUSIC #2; appearing on local television stations in his own home television market does not assist passage of #12; placing a song in a TV show does not satisfy #10 if your source for that is a YouTube clip of the scene itself, and not a reliable source writing about the appearance; going "viral" within a youth organization's internal membership community is not a notability claim if the only source for that is a member's own blog post; and on and so forth. And for added bonus, the creator — an SPA who's never worked on anything but this, thus suggesting a possible conflict of interest when you combine that fact with how blatantly advertorialized the content is — started it in draftspace and then copied and pasted it directly into mainspace without ever submitting it for WP:AFC review, which is not how draftspace works. There's simply no way that any AFC reviewer worth their salt would ever have let this through without demanding a major scrubdown for tone and a significant sourcing overhaul.

No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but the principle of WP:TNT pertains here — even if he could be properly shown to clear NMUSIC, this isn't the article or the sourcing that gets him there. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete On balance, not notable enough for Wikipedia. Doesn't pass criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Darx9url (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist talk&#124; contribs  07:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Horrible semi-promotional tone, but fixing this is an editing matter; sufficient sources showing in the footnotes to pass GNG. Subject is covered substantially in multiple, independently-published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly point out which sources are sufficient to pass GNG, because I sure as hell ain't seeing 'em. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The published newspaper pieces by Hancock and Cooper showing in the footnotes, for starters. Did you sure as hell go through the footnotes before running a Google search of this impossible-to-winnow common name? Carrite (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a draft for the same guy as well, Draft:David_G._Smith, but hasn't been edited in 4 months. We should move the page to include the . after the middle name. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I found news articles about without having to take pointers from the included refs. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete--Per nom.Apply TNT. Winged Blades Godric 14:58, 8 July 2017 (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.