Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Mitchell (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 delete.  Sandstein  07:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong or properly referenced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claims in evidence here involve numbers of streams on internet platforms like Spotify or Instagram, which are no part of our notability criteria for musicians whatsoever -- and the entire article is completely unreferenced to even one shred of coverage in real media. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are entitled to have promotionally toned articles just because they exist -- a musician has to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC, and reliable source coverage in real media to support it, for an article on here to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems self-promotional not encyclopedic. --Micky (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is true that the article seems promotional and would need a major rewrite, but I don't like Bearcat's distinction between "streaming" and "real media".  For musicians of this performer's generation and appealing principally to his generation, streaming *is* the best way to measure their popularity, and "real media" as defined above has no impact or meaning to that generation at all.  By enforcing what to the young is a meaningless distinction, you're encouraging a bias against new artists and a bias in favour of a particular style of rock which is hypocritical, because the same criteria well within my memory would have elevated only classical and excluded rock entirely.  Granted this artist is not (yet) a major name even to his own generation, but when an unquestionably notable and successful artist such as Tion Wayne can be nominated for deletion, something is very wrong.  RobinCarmody (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Our notability standards always require third party coverage in reliable sources independent of the artist's own self-promotional materials. That is, people do not get into Wikipedia on the basis of what they claim about themselves on platforms (such as social networking or streaming platforms) where they were able to place and write about themselves — people get into Wikipedia on the basis of having received outside attention from music journalists, which independently verifies that they have passed one or more of the criteria listed in WP:NMUSIC. Neither artists of Mitchell's generation nor artists of colour have any inherent age or racially based problems getting covered by the media: Lizzo has media coverage, Lil Nas X has media coverage, Johnny Orlando has media coverage, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I might add that it is disproportionately black artists who do best on streaming, which adds a whole other set of dangerous implications to Bearcat's argument.  RobinCarmody (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I believe artists of his generation are still covered in "real" media. Without coverage in RS, fails NMUSIC. MB 02:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (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.