Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ericdoa


 * 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. Consensus that editing subsequent to the nomination establishes notability. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Ericdoa

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

Ericdoa

Musical artist and record producer who does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. This article has tone problems and appears to have been written to praise or promote its subject The sources have not yet been checked, but an article should speak for itself and explain what notability criterion is satisfied, and this article does not. The typo in the lede sentence as to the subject's date of birth (saying 2007, as opposed to the 2002 in the infobox) is evidence of sloppiness and haste. A previous article on the subject was deleted as G11, and the originator may have been in a hurry to get a new article listed. The good-faith explanation may be that the author is an ultra, an enthusiastic fan.

The author has simultaneously created this page in article space and draft space, which may be intended to game the system by preventing draftifying the article. It doesn't prevent nominating the article for deletion as not meeting either musical notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music,  and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "musical notability"? Ericdoa is an artist that has been featured in prominent publications such as Rolling Stone, Complex, and others, So I don't know where the " satisfy musical notability or general notability" came from.  Also, I'm not attempting to "game the system."  someone will undoubtedly checked to see whether the article has been generate before which is a no brainer. Before the actual article, I wrote a draft. So your argument that I'm trying to manipulate the system isn't valid. Plus, the reason why I did that was because the other version of the article was deleted and every time i write an article without submitting it gets nominated for deletion unlike my other article I submit. But, I just was thinking about it and knew it could be nominated for deletion no matter what so I just put the article in the article space. Gameforall (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete After a review of the sources, none appear reliable or go into significant in-depth coverage, and many are passing mentions in a list of artists. Additionally, interviews with subject do not establish notability, per WP: GNG. Reads like WP:ADMASQ and is certainly promotional in nature. The workarounds to ensure its status call into question WP:NPOV and WP:COI. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So how do people get prove their claim with sources about people real life stories without a major source interviewing them? Gameforall (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * get prove for their claim* Gameforall (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you aren’t clear in how notability is established on Wikipedia. Please review WP:GNG. Your sources should be independent, which means not from the subject or affiliated parties. Your sources should be reliable; not blogs, press releases, or other promotional content. And your sources should cover the subject in-depth, not solely mentions or listings in a prominent publication. Direct me to where you have sufficiently satisfied this (3 sources would be a good start) and I will happily change my decision. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing I notice that every article I create one person aims for the article to be taken down. Tell me why Midwxst or Kashdami Wikipedia articles isnt taken down and those articles barely even have sources that are independent and there are interviews with subjects as sources The same goes to a lot of Wikipedia pages. But its my pages I create people want to take down. Nice. Gameforall (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also most of the sources on the pages that are in the articles are press release, blogs, videos, Itunes/apple music links so why @Robert McClenon, @NiklausGerard , other admin and users on my neck on the articles I create. If you dont do nothing on other articles that have the same problem why come from mine makes no sense. Like I said plenty of times admins and users always pick and choose on this site. Gameforall (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And why did you include the disclaimer that the piece might be done for an undisclosed fee? You can't make a claim without proof, as I know you've seen in the judicial system and in real-life situations. Gameforall (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That template is used when the article in question MAY have been edited for pay and not openly disclosed. It is appropriate given the tone of the article, the information we have presently and the subject in question. Please review the guidelines on the template’s page for more clarity. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments to User:Gameforall:
 * Are you saying that most of your sources are "press release, blogs, videos", or that other articles have mostly press releases, blogs, videos?
 * See Other Stuff Exists. You can nominate the other stuff for deletion.
 * You have a right to create articles in article space, or to create drafts in draft space. Why did you create Ericdoa in both article space and draft space, if not to game the system?
 * If you create a draft that isn't ready for article space, it will be declined, and you can work on it.
 * If you create an article that isn't ready for article space, it may be either nominated for deletion or pushed into draft space, where you can work on it.
 * If you create a draft and an article that aren't ready for article space, we have no choice but to nominate it for deletion from article space.


 * I mean the other articles. And also you try to aim for my article for what. I showed you examples of articles that dont "satisfy musical notability or general notability" as you seem to claim in my article. I know you saw those articles I showed you and left it alone but my article I create should be nominated for deletion. It doesn't make sense at all. This just proves my point you guys pick and choose Gameforall (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: To discuss Tony_Fox's edits Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been digging around for references to this artist, and I'm finding a lot of coverage, honestly - Rolling Stone, NME, Paper Magazine, Alternative Press, Vice and a couple others. Having said that, if we have a draft underway someplace, then that might be the place to work from. - may I suggest a course of action, which is to request a voluntary deletion of the article, and then to work on the draft, with assistance from other editors, to get valid sources and a much less promotional tone in place before moving it forward to mainspace again? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tony Fox Would you mind linking them? As I stated previously, if there are sources that satisfy the aforementioned notability standards I would be happy to recant. I haven’t found any and don’t believe they exist in the article either. Of the publications you listed, are you certain they are in-depth coverage, per WP:SIGCOV? Lastly, I can’t believe I have to say this but this wasn’t some personal attack or war on anyone, and this marks my first encounter with the subject or author. I am just doing my part in maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity. @Gameforall I would be happy to help you with the articles you would like to publish within the standards of the mainspace. NiklausGerard (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they're not necessarily in the article, but the ones I've found are definitely indicative of a notable artist.
 * Vice article on hyperpop where he and Glaive (musician) are interviewed as representative of the Hyperpop scene.
 * Big profile here in The Line of Best Fit.
 * Interview feature in NME.
 * Big interview in Alternative Press (magazine) written by the mag's former editor-in-chief. (And I'm going to note that according to WP:GNG interviews are not automatically disqualified as sources - note the ongoing discussion on the GNG talk page. These are conducted by staff writers or freelancers, not marketing departments.)
 * I think those may provide a fair bit towards notability here - when Vice, NME and AltPress give someone that kind of space, it says a lot. I think I can also find some mentions and discussion/reviews of his latest couple of singles, as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * One more I just stumbled across, including this piece from Complex where he's interviewed as what they call a "foundational figure of the digicore scene." Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (just another note here that it looks like some of these were already actually in the article at some point. I swear I looked at them and they weren't. Anyhow, these are all very good to me. I think the article needs a good rewrite to really amplify the sourcing though.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just done a rewrite of the article to make it more neutral and work on the sourcing. I feel that it's now well established and shows notability. Thus, count me as a Keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance for your contribute into keeping the Wikipedia page up Tony Fox. Also, thanks for helping out redoing the article. Your edits to the Wikipedia article are far superior to mine, thus I commend you for doing so. Gameforall (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Just need to wait for the process to wrap up here now. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Although Gameforall has had a poor behavior of taking articles that should be reviewed first in draftspace and creating copies of them in articlespace (which was the same issue that led to the IShowSpeed deletion a few weeks ago), I believe in this case they were in the right. Ericdoa seems to pass notability guidelines per Gameforall and Tony Fox's edits. Not only were the sources they found strong enough to pass WP:NMUSIC, but there were already some decent enough sources in the article as well. Looking at the revision before Robert nominated it for deletion, literally the first reference in the article was a Pitchfork review of one of his EPs which included details on his personal life and background. The only other legitimate concern was the idea of interviews being non-independent per WP:Interviews, but just because a source contains some quotes from the subject itself doesn't automatically mean it should count as a primary source. Of course when an article is written directly about a person, they're going to include some material straight from them in order to draw material to write about; it's pretty hard to write an piece about a person's life and occupation without including some primary source material from them anyways, unless they were involved in some breaking news or controversy. But anyway, Gameforall here was mostly justified in moving the article to mainspace and in their responses.


 * On an unrelated note, I honestly think there needs to be some new speedy deletion policy where an article created in mainspace from an existing draft should automatically be deleted or merged. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I think my job here is to ignore the history, avoid speculating on good or bad faith process, ignore how the article look at any point in time other than now and with that lens, this article seems notable to me, several reliable sources writing about them. CT55555 (talk) 00:14, 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.