Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper (singer)


 * 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. Tone 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Jasper (singer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Vanity autobiography of non-notable singer. Subject has himself been promoting the autobiography, and has removed the proposed deletion notice. (His "references" include self-published "Myspace" page. The two mentions in Daily Star's kids magazine has surprisingly similar text, and possibly the same article recycled twice. Other than that, no mention in mainstream media. There is also a big conflict of interest, with the subject himself adding to his own autobiography. Ragib (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC. --Ragib (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, An autobiography of an artist MEANS that it's written by the artist himself. So, I suppose you were speaking of a "biography" at all points and not an "autobiography". The references include Jasper's MySpace page have been removed, I've noticed. Citation is required. That's understandable as long as it's a matter of the history of the artist (biography). But, removing his page because of this would be simply unreasonable and unethical according to as far as my understanding goes.


 * The articles issued in The Daily Star were featured in The Rising Stars and the Campus. NONE OF THEM are kids' magazines, I'd beg to differ. And, they definitely are two different articles since they have been PUBLISHED in two different places and dates. Now, of course, we wouldn't assume that the artist has hacked the website of one of the most recognized newspapers' website and has put the articles himself. And, on a second point, the articles referred to the existence of this artist in industry important enough to be interviewed. That, to me or everyone else, should be more important than the noticing if the information on the artist, who already appeared in his exclusive TV show with his band according to this http://www.amadergaan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26270&page=43 and at the bottom of this source http://www.thedailystar.net/campus/2009/04/01/feature_funk.htm, has been REPEATED.


 * I've also noticed the references to AmaderGaan has been removed when they themselves have a Wikipedia page, placing a strong base on the circle of the industry, HAS put professional reviews on the artist, his band and the albums he was associated with. I'd like to understand why would this happen? If you thought it was just a website forum, you're wrong. Check its Wikipedia page, amaderGaan. It's a big organization which is heavily active in organizing major concerts and TV shows throughout the country, sponsoring big time artists. But then again, from another angle, it's also like a mainstream portal, kind of like Allmusic.com of Bangladesh. It is THE biggest musical organization of this kind of the Bangladeshi music industry. And it also HAPPENS to have a forum. THAT's ALL.


 * P.S. I'll ask you to search these things, "jasper bangladesh", "jasper kata taarer bera" and "jasper groovetrap" in GOOGLE. Besides the massive attention of the fans Jasper has, a non-notable artist from Bangladesh doesn't have his music illegally shared in more than 400 websites, do they?


 * P.S.2. And, his song Club Sokina was the 61st of the most wanted songs of 2008, even above half a dozen of Habib/Fuad/Topu songs, among the other giants, on RadioFoorti out of the thousands of songs released all over Bangladesh that year according to this http://www.amadergaan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27585. He has FANS.

Tran5par3ncy (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Myspace, a self-published social networking site, is NOT a reference for encyclopedic content. Same applies to a forum site like Amadergaan. --Ragib (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks also for bringing up the article on amaderGaan, the website failes WP:N, and is not encyclopedic. I'll nominate that unreferenced, orphaned article when I have time. Existence of a unreferenced article on WP does not make amaderGaan a reliable source ... it was, and still is a web forum. --Ragib (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - he seems to have a lot of fans (a cult following?), and mentions in periodicals, thus notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Unfortunately all of the keep arguments above are perfectly void on Wikipedia. The article fails the general notability guideline and self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves - two of the core policies. If this article stays then Wikipedia policies will have to go, I guess. Web Forums, Facebook, MySpace, passing mention in a newspaper... and such sources to validate and verify the notability of one singer who is hardly known beyond the 500 people he grew up with isn't encyclopedic even by the most stretched out imagination. No, dears, this is material for the trashcan. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - I do strongly agree with the proposed deletion. As per WP:MUSIC, a band or person is notable if he Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Unfortunately both the references presented on this article are from kid magazines and written by fans and audiences who are mainly school and university students, not an expert or independent journalist. In fact, nature of these two magazines are to encourage young reader to come up and write armature article on different issues. Even I have couple of articles published there. Moreover, he does not have any chart single or any record certified gold or higher or even other coverage. Facebook and Myspace pages can not assert popularity of a person unless he receives significant media coverage from national and regional body. I wonder, it might be a case of WP:COI as the creator of this article is new on Wikipedia and working only on this article. Thus, I vote for a strong deletion of such a Vanity article. - Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  08:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - No matter what your "personal" opinions of the artist and his fans are, NOTHING you've mentioned justifies the page to be deleted. WIKIPEDIA is not about personal opinions. As long as the artist is mentioned in mainstream media (newspapers, TV) with studio albums out making notable places in local charts (what charts were you looking for in Bangladesh? MTV?) and selling large amount of copies (Bangladesh doesn't have anything like RIAA so the number of sales is unverifiable - those in newspapers and magazines are just statements from the artists themselves, so they're as unverifiable as Jasper). But, doing some google search like "jasper kata taarer bera" would feed your personal interest in finding a clue of why this artist could've been NOTABLE. SO, the only thing that seems justifiable is moving the article from AfD to NORMAL articles, removing biography part OR putting a citation needed tag encouraging someone to fill it up from a more reliable source. THANK you. Tran5par3ncy Tran5par3ncy (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a duplicate opinion from the same user, see his first opinion above. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the strong keep to comment as not to confuse the closing admin. Tim  meh  !  18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  —Ragib (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it fails WP:N. There is almost no coverage by reliable third-party sources. Tim  meh  !  18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:V. And I'd like to point out that this discussion has two nominations for "keep", one by the original editor. If you remove all comments by the original editor (who seems to be a WP:SPA), the discussion is fairly bland. For those interested, you can see here what the article looks like when all comments by, about or in reply to Tran5par3ncy are removed. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 13:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment Dude, we just need the sources - those two on the article are not from reliable sources. If its been in charts then there'll be proof somewhere! We aren't on a crusade to delete everything, we trying build a great quality encyclopedia, which means everything has to be verifiable Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand, bro. But, I don't understand how two articles on The Daily Star (Bangladesh) can be not reliable sources. Check pages like Aurthohin and more. They have one reference from the same newspaper. Whereas this one has two. RadioFoorti website has some problems, so the reference towards the Most Wanted songs couldn't be referred directly. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, you have already voted once. --Ragib (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That was not my argument. The argument is about the reliability of a source you've questioned that HAS been portrayed as a reliable source for another approved page. I'm not violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anyway, referring to Aurthohin is a very minor but important point I've mentioned. But, I'm sure you've noticed the other ones too. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well, your referral to other articles is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Now, since you insist on Google search, let's see. jasper kata taarer bera shows only 126 hits, (after removing facebook, youtube, esnips, myspace etc.). Shows clearly that the subject (Jasper) is quite non notable. --Ragib (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: And add the search result of "jasper groovetrap" to that? Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Then according to you, two of other referrals (The Daily Star) doesn't violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's something to talk about. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jasper Groovetrap" gets 2 google hits...... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: WRONG. Do not include the quotation marks when you search. That only searches for sentences like "... jasper groovetrap...". Check this... http://www.google.com.bd/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=nhX&q=jasper+groovetrap&btnG=Search&meta= Tran5par3ncy (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anyway, so many arguments above is unanswered. Please, check those. I'm not the artist, brothers. I'm not a big fan either. I just opened up a page that an artist deserved. And, I've opened this with all the rules acknowledged. I don't believe I've violated any rules according to his notability or the reliability of the sources. Technically, I'm right. I can't let my article be deleted for improper reasons. So, PLEASE finish the arguments. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What "arguments" are unanswered? Japser (if it's not you) fails WP:N miserably. I also googled Jasper Groovetrap without quotes, and got about 107 results, mostly from self-posted Youtube and forum links. Per WP:MUSIC, trivial or one-time coverage from a single article is not enough. Besides, it seems that the Daily Star weekend supplement articles have a large amount of text from Jasper's press release ... a lot of the text is also found in several fan pages. --Ragib (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.google.com.bd/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=3zD&q=jasper+groovetrap+-facebook+-myspace+-forum+-youtube&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= then how about this without facebook, myspace,youtube, forums. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's *exactly* what I've done here, run the query and filtering out Jasper's own myspace page, his facebook page, and other self-published pages. Seems like he is only "famous" :D when we consider his facebook and his own myspace page ... LOL. So much for a "notable" "famous" musician!! --Ragib (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: You know what, I rest my case from here. You can do whatever you like with the page. But, I'd hope someone in the future brings Wikipedia more sources for the article to be rebuilt in the future as he really deserves it. Thanks for all, bros. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That GHit argument is so invalid. Try my name - with quote marks you'll have 1,010 hits,a and without quote marks 111,000 hits. That's way more than Jasper (singer). Hahahhaahahha... there goes your famous singer, who only has a self-posted existence on the web, and not really much on the ground. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. That just means you're an excessively self-exposed person on the web AND him on the ground. LOL. Watch before you say, funny guy. Anyway, this is pointless. 202.79.17.132 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True. This is pointless, rather "these" are. The article is, this "singer" is, and the strange argument to keep the article4 obviously is. Can you cite a single reason, apart from your "personal belief" in the "singer"s fame? Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting Tran5par3ncy have so far edited almost solely this AfD page and the article in discussion (which was almost solely edited by Tran5par3ncy), and 202.79.17.132 edited so far only this page. Probably the same person masquerading as two. Not too brilliant a move, I'd say. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting My detective friend, it IS the same user. LOL. I was writing something and for some reason I got logged out. So, I pressed "save page" and it took me in as "anonymous" for your KIND investigation. LOL. I don't believe, I've made it clear enough that I REST MY CASE. You can continue with your duty. Please, do not further put arguments about it towards me since I've put an end to mine. I'm very sorry I couldn't give enough sources. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just noticed that the entire article is a blatant copyvio from Jasper's myspace page. User:Tran5par3ncy claims he is not Jasper, yet Jasper's personal myspace page has the exact content as Tran5par3ncy's addition to the page. :). I have removed the copyvio text from the article. --Ragib (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yeah, I've copied it from his MySpace MUSIC page. Why do I need to be JASPER, LOL, for that? Or, did they make new privacy settings on MySpace music pages that fans or viewers can't visit the site. I believe, everyone being able to visit the site is THE main point of it. You sometimes amaze me. Anyway, thanks for removing the copied stuff from MySpace. It's certainly not a reliable source. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Aditya (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Daily star campus weeked supplement article seem to plagiarize a lot of content from the other article (even though the writers are "supposedly" different). Especially, the 9th paragraph "Proceeding further in the album ..." is almost a verbatim copy of the 5th paragraph of the Rising star page. :) --Ragib (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: If only you guys monitored all the Wikipedia entries like this one! Wonders would've happened. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do you have any problem with what we do with our time? Please don't get personal, rather focus on the discussion on *this article* here. I believe the case for the AFD is very clear by this time, and non-notability of the subject has been established. As for your curiosity, yes I DO monitor all new BD related articles, in order to weed out non-notable people writing autobiographies. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I wasn't getting personal, you know. Anyway, what's gonna happen to the article now? Deletion? Just a general curiosity. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting! I took part in more than hundred AfDs but never faced such arguments. Tran5par3ncy, you are new on WP and I would like to welcome you to this charming world. We are not against any new artist but just waiting for his notability to be established. I would also recommend you (just an advise, don't take it otherwise) to read different Wikipedia policies. It will help you to understand how to work on Wikipedia. You gave us two references from Daily Star; let me give you one! . Cheers. - Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen worse. One guy claimed that the article on a certain person should be kept, because that person shot that editor's brother in the legs, and then drove him to hospital! Another editor actually supported per the brother. What wonders we find here. Such wonderful reasoning! Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 April 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.