Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meyhem Lauren


 * 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. A passionate defense, but the consensus is clear.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Meyhem Lauren

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear too meet the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The VV source in the article is good. pretty good rundown of coverage at his webpage . Includes scans & pdfs of numerous print sources like Juice, the graffiti mag Bombin ' , and illustration mag (i think? article seems focused on clothing) For What It's Worth, the bloggy but good (cited by NYT, The Atlantic, hiphopdx) unkut.com , review by The Needle Drop , Clout mag interview  (About page) and a really nice piece @ t.r.o.y. that probably can't be used.  86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — 86.44.31.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - If he has so many good sources, why haven't they been added to the article? — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why haven't they been added to the article... by you? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not obliged to add sources to an article if I do not wish to, especially in areas I don't have any particular experience in. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Your disinclination isn't a deletion rationale tho. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one with the sources. Onus is on you to add them yourself. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * you can't compel a volunteer to do work you're not interested in doing by threatening deletion. (i've already voluntarily done work you're not interested in doing. hence we all have some sources now. would you rather i didn't do this work?) also, either the subject is notable or it's not. do you have an opinion? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I can't compel someone to work on an article. But, nor can you. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because they don't meet WP:RS? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that your opinion? If so, can you be more specific, or do you think they are uniformly bad? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... the issues are as follows: 1) This one isn't bad, but it just lists Meyhem as one person in a list of others. It's something that could be used as a trivial source to back up claims, but lists like those don't generally show notability because it doesn't focus on any one person. 2)  This one links to his website, making it a primary source. Unless someone is considered to be an authority on a subject, you can't use anything that they or any of their agents put out. Being an authority would mean that there would be so many sources proving notability that citing Meyhem wouldn't be an issue, which isn't the case here. You could probably use it to find the actual sources, but I'd look at the articles to verify that they're the same before quoting them. (Hey, it's showbusiness. Everyone changes things to make themselves look good.) 3)  This one suffers from the same issues as the first link: it merely lists the album along with another one. It'd be good for a trivial source, but not as a reliable source. 4)  This one is sort of tricky and mostly has to do with the notability of the person doing the review. They do have an article here on Wikipedia, but it's tagged for notability. A review or article has to be done by a reliable person or group (Maxim, Vice, etc.) to be considered a reliable source. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't always mean that something is notable. It might just mean that someone hasn't gotten around to deleting the article yet. 5)  This one falls under the same problems as #4: it is dubious as to how notable Clout is. It's otherwise a good article, but the source has to be considered notable/reliable. The magazine is legit, but it's indie so those types of magazines are always debated as far as reliability goes. 6)  Blogs can't be used as reliable sources unless it's by someone incredibly notable. If I wrote a blog it wouldn't be able to be used, but if someone like Sean Combs, the editor of XXL, or even someone not in that genre of music like Justin Bieber were to write a blog about him, that could be used.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * It's a pretty strict guideline, unfortunately. Since Mayhem isn't released on what Wikipedia would consider a major label at this point in time, he can't get by on the major label part of WP:MUSICBIO. One thing I do want to comment on is that you should never expect people to add sources or facts for you. Always assume that no matter how many people you talk to, that we won't edit an article and that you'll be the only person who will edit the article at all. My reasoning behind this is that I've seen articles get created and then go YEARS without someone touching it, only for people to get upset when it comes up to deletion, wondering why nobody added sources. While you didn't create the article, always assume that no other editors will do the work after you leave the page. Sometimes people will go without adding or editing anything for various reasons, ranging from not having anything to add to simply being too exhausted and/or uninterested to do anything. Now don't go crazy, expecting that they won't edit anything that's obviously wrong, but always assume that your electronic hands will be the last one to handle the article. That said, you might want to look into seeing if the original owner wants to incubate this article until reliable sources can be found showing that Mayhem passes music notability guidelines. If she or he won't, then I recommend signing up for an account and userfying it yourself. (WP:USERFY) Hopefully some of all this can help explain the policies and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * Thanks, but i didn't mean to give the impression i'm not clear on the policies. I am. You misunderstand my linking to meyhem's press page. That lists independent coverage, as i (partially) detailed above. Your rundown has therefore skipped four articles in three print sources. Your rundown also misunderstands what constitutes non-trivial coverage. To see this is so, compare the significant treatment you call trivial to the examples of triviality in the guideline. These are not lists, but rather the act is not the sole subject of the articles. You come to no conclusion, as far as i can tell, on Clout and The Needle Drop. I have no plans to edit the article. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have no plans on editing the article then don't be surprised when it gets deleted. An AfD is more than just throwing sources out there. You also have to add them to the article or it will be brought up to AfD again even if it manages to get kept. My point is that if you really want to have the article kept, WORK ON IT rather than trying to get others to do it for you.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79
 * Nowhere have i tried to get others to do it for me, although now you mention it it's an idea not without merit in the spirit of collaboration. Anyone bringing an article back to AfD should check previous discussion. i'm content to demonstrate notability. AfD is not for problems that can be fixed through normal editing. The insistence that i work on the article while an AfD is ongoing merely because i find it notable is a low sort of blackmail, and the implication that my doing such work would cause !votes to switch to Keep rather exposes the problem with this line of thinking. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was just to say that if you're going to put this much work into trying to save it, the best way to save it is to add the sources to the article and flesh it out. Unfortunately there's going to be a lot of people who decide based on the way the article looks and there's a lot of people who do their own searches and base their decisions off of that as well as on what is in the article. They might not lend as much weight to things mentioned in the AfD and not put in the article, thinking that they aren't usable for whatever reason. It'd be nice if people were to be more meticulous, but sometimes they aren't. My intention wasn't to blackmail, but to say that pretty much you can't expect or rely on anyone else to do anything on an article unless it's on an article that's so big and so mainstream that it has a huge amount of editors monitoring it. Trust me, I've learned that point the hard way. I've also learned that listing things in an AfD doesn't always mean that people will listen to them or even put them on the article. I've listed references in the past and left it up to others to add them, only for people to ignore them and then the article gets deleted. Maybe the sources weren't reliable, maybe they were. The point is that I didn't do the work myself and nobody did it for me and there's a chance that my lack of work might have kept the article from being kept. I know that on the times where I have found the sources and added them to the article rather than to the AfD, I've had a higher rate of those articles being kept. I'm just telling you what I've discovered through my own past experiences, is all. If you want an article to be kept, work on it. Sometimes a well laid out article with good resources can work miracles. If you don't want to do it then nobody's really forcing you to. Just from my experience, a lack of action can lead to articles being deleted and I've seen some articles and images that I've created and uploaded deleted because I didn't work on them and I assumed that others would.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 08:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate. I looked at the sources provided in the article and in this AfD, and what I could find on my own. In balance, I just don't think that the notability is there yet, but it could be in the near future (say, a year), hence "incubate" rather than "delete". Happy to look at additional sourcing, now or in the future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So your position is that, to pick two, &  does not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The interview in Juice and his inclusion in the list from the blog on the Village Voice are useful and help the case but are not enough by themselves. When you say "to pick two", you imply that there is plenty more of this quality (in both substance and WP:RS), but is there yet? The Clout and Needle Drop refs you mention above are also of use, but I don't think there's enough there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think you've explained why you think by themselves they are not enough, since you seem to agree they constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, though as you say they are not by themselves. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete All I see is unreliable sources; because of that, the content is not verifiable and notability cannot be established. Pol430  talk to me 15:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? You seem unique in finding the Village Voice and Juice sources unreliable, and it's hard to believe you've done a shred of research into any source presented. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're so deadset on arguing those sources are good enough, put your money where your mouth is and add them to the article as sources yourself. Stop trying to force us to do it or arguing that it should be kept because of the potential sources. That's not how things work. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i've never tried to force anyone to do it. the sources are actual. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then put them in the article. AfD can only assess what is presently in the article, not what could potentially go in the article. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. If you have no view to express on the notability of the subject, please use Talk for any further correspondence. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, 86.44. Put them in the article if you think they can prove his notability. What I said above holds true - we don't judge an article on it's potential notability; we judge it on what's been proven. And there is precedent for AfDs to reverse course if they've been edited to address concerns raised in the nomination during the course of it. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have reverted my delete close on this, which was preformed 1 Jan. I invite further discussion and !votes. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Like others, I find the heap of blog posts and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources, and I'm quite comfortable with WP:MUSICBIO setting a relatively high notability bar which procludes every unknown indie auteur with a mixtape. WP:V is also quite explicit and quite clear that sources cannot merely be alleged, but must be produced in the article in order to sustain it, while deletion policy is likewise quite clear that the onus is on editors who wish to save an article to produce the evidence necessary to do so. The curious disinclination of the single Keep proponent to improve the article doesn't fill me with confidence that the article is likely to be improved in the future.  Ravenswing  10:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * re WP:V, if you wish to challenge statements in the article, do so! preferably on the talk page, i.e. thru the normal editing process. re wp:del, not sure what you're citing, but evidence has been produced. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * More correctly, you find the heap of blog posts, print sources and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources. Why you do not say. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources not included as citations in article are irrelevant to this discussion, particularly since supporters haven't added any during the several weeks that the AfD notice has been up.  Single source cited in article (VV blog entry) isn't enough: it falls short of "significant coverage", listing article's subject as one of five artists to watch but not covering him in any real depth; and it seems more to speculate on his future notability than to confirm his notability at the time of writing.  Since it's been 11 months and that future notability apparently hasn't eventuated, we must assume that the prophecy of notability has fizzled out.  Ammodramus (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources are what confirm wiki-notability, whether or not they speculate as to subject's future. If they do, that is itself notable and significant. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a load of bung. New York Times could speculate all they want as to Ralph Nader's chances to become President of the United States; it would be flatly dishonest to present the article as if he is already notable for being such. And why are you so hesitant to add the sources yourself? I'm genuinely perplexed that you would defend the article yet not do a damn thing to improve it. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this has been listed for three weeks without any improvement. I see no evidence of notability by any measure. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (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.