Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination)


 * 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, notability demonstrated by snowball, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet who twice earlier nominated the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

J Stalin
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article is fails the notability guidelines particularly having multiple non-trivial coverage in published sources, although mentioned in passing in several places and that is has many sources, all but two of them only mention J Stalin about one time if at all, most sources establish facts irrespective of the subject of the article and do not establish notability, the subject also fails WP:BAND, previous nominations for deletion were never allowed to finish due to interference and bickering. This is a rapper of local interest, with no significant coverage and the article makes several dubious statements, such as using the artist's album notes as a source.Fails: WP:NM, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, Troyster87 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep That's a lot of references, and I disagree as many are more than in-passing. The local part is hard to argue with (all SF/Bay area) but that's a big area and I think these papers have significant circulation. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a lot of references, there are only two that offer more than passing coverage.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a lot and I'm not finding them to be "in passing" for the most part. Which two do you think are okay? Hobit (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep - suggest early close. Pointless nomination of an article that has survived two AfDs and obviously meets formal notability criteria, suggests weak understanding of notability in the nomination.  Local interest is fine.  There are many more sources out there if anyone would care to look.Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you clarify how it obviously meets the criteria? Isn't it premature to suggest a snowball keep? If sources exist point them out.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- While not all of the sources linked as references in the article cover him in depth, there's enough there that, to me, he comes off as notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough references to support the article and be notable.  Math Cool  10  Sign here! 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to clarify the first reference is an article/interview in free newspaper, the next is a claimed mention in "murder dog magazine", next are the artist's "album notes" that are not independent of the subject and cannot establish notability, second is "sideshow" article, where J-Stalin is mentioned in passing, at the very end, as a resident not the subject of the article, not a reliable source for establishing notability, the next is a very brief six sentence "article" in another free newspaper, not a reliable reference for establishing notability, the next is a link to comments on stash.com, not a source of anything, the next is a San Francisco Bay Guardian listing of various concerts, listings are not reliable sources for establishing notability, another is a dead link to another free newspaper (bayview), the next is an article about stem cell research and rap music, where J Stalin is again mentioned once in the end, where he is not the subject of the article, this does not establish notability, furthermore Yo! Youth Outlook does not appear to be a reliable source for anything, this article mentions J Stalin four times, but is not about him it does not assert that he is of any note and only states that he has collaborated on music with other rap artists, that are also not notable, only mentioned in passing, I don;t feel that mention in one or two (free newspapers) sources counts as non-trivial coverage in multiple published sources, please make sure not to be prejudiced by the clean look of the article, the references are well inserted however the references themselves are lacking.Troyster87 (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, J Stalin is not signed by a major or any label, does not have significant if any verifiable album sales, nor does he have any press in the mass media, he doesn't even have his own website (ixnay myspace).Troyster87 (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Major mentions (full lengthy articles, profiles) in significant reliable source newspapers. These free papers are major operations - one is owned by Village Voice, etc.  Both have large staffs, full editorial process,  circulation in the 150,000 range, and are leading mainstream papers covering local music.  Leading representative of a style and a local music scene.  Important to the development of a genre of music. Has collaborated and performed with many notable musicians.  Called influential, groundbreaking, etc., by the various sources.  Tracks on notable albums.  Signed to label that is considered a leading center of a sub-genre of music.  Covered every year in the round-up of music, #1 local rap sales, some mention of a billboard chart, "regional stardom", etc, etc.  As someone said in the last deletion nomination, what's the point having notability criteria if people won't follow them?  If you think the criteria should be changed then please lobby there but not by nominating articles for deletion.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does he have major mentions multiple newspapers? That's really the only question. What are "full lenghty" articles? 2 is not multiple. Which notable musicians has he collaborated with, do they have wikipedia articles, do you have links proving this?, Please provide a source stating that he is a "leader", "groundbreaking", Tracks on what notable albums? A notable label? In what roundup of music? Regional stardom is "local", local isn't notable, what do you mean some mention of a billboard chart?Troyster87 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're pretty much wrong on all counts. Why don't you figure it out for yourself, preferably before nominating articles for deletion.  Don't you have anything more useful to be doing on Wikipedia?  Wikidemon (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get all ad hominem on me please and assume good faith. Please answer the questions.Troyster87 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making up notability criteria and you're asking me to answer questions for you that you can figure out for yourself. If you want to know his discography, for example, some of it is mentioned in the article and you can find the rest on google.  The deletion discussion is for several editors to say what they think, not a challenge match. Wikidemon (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies the general notability guideline and criterion 1 of WP:BAND which is essentially a restatement of the GNG.  Setting aside the deadlink and sources not accessible online, we have a SF Guardian profile on the subject, a Guardian article giving an award to the subject (not a concert listing), two additional Guardian articles that qualify as "non-trivial" but probably not "substantial" coverage, a non-trivial YO! article mention (see no reason to declare it non-reliable), and two newspaper blogs, one a profile and one a non-trivial mention, which may or may not be reliable sources depending on the amount of editorial control the newspapers exercise over their blogs (see BLP).  Two or three clearly significant source mentions plus three or four more non-trivial mentions is easily enough, even without considering any other sources in or outside the article.  There's no non-local coverage requirement for people as there is for organizations, so it doesn't matter if all the article's citations are local, nor does it matter if the subject has a website or record label (so long as source coverage is available).  BTW the first AfD was closed early due to procedural issues, but the second closed just over a week ago after a full run with a consensus that the subject's notability had been established.  Baileypalblue (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a year ago, I'm still not used to the change from 2008 to 2009 :) Baileypalblue (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings, and on another note, not a real award. Not an article. Not a reliable sources for establishing notability.Troyster87 (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure :). Agree the award is not notable, but I'd say an award from a newspaper counts as significant coverage by that paper, even when the award itself is not notable.  Baileypalblue (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Keep (probably speedy) - Easily passes all of the guidelines the nom claims this topic fails (that they threw in WP:V is bizarre - a topic only "fails" WP:V if anything about it is unverifiable). The coverage is substantial and in-depth, particularly from the San Francisco Bay Guardian.  A pointy nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as still notable (it's not temporary) and still well-covered by reliable third-party sources (see Baileypalblue's comment above). On an unrelated note, I don't appreciate being canvassed by the nominator for this AfD just because I made a trivial formatting edit last April. - Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - user is a banned sock. // roux   23:28, 10 March 2009 (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.