Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precious Child


 * 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. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious Child

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. Can't see anything in the way of respectable references. TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep Respectable references listed include:

Paste Magazine, 2.8M unique visitors a month http://www.trafficestimate.com/pastemagazine.com

Bloody Disgusting, 1.7M unique visitors a month http://www.trafficestimate.com/bloody-disgusting.com Example exclusive 3/8/17 Todd Mcfarlane: http://bloody-disgusting.com/exclusives/3427169/todd-mcfarlane-just-completed-spawn-screenplay-exclusive/

Soundtrack for Neil Gaiman (30M+ books sold) authorized biographical documentary: IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5758302/. Pluffleses (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC) — This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a band article not an Albums and songs article.Pluffleses (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The problem with the references cited in the "keep" ivote above by this article's SPA author are that they--like most of the other sources--are essentially submitted promotional video content that is more than half comprised of an interview (or a written statement) by the subject. Regardless of the sources numbers of unique visitors, these are first person references. What's missing regarding this subject is significant independent, third party coverage. The other sources in the article are user submitted sites, trivial mentions, or unimportant music sites/blogs. As for the soundtrack, it can be debated if an IMDB credit as "supervising sound editor" and "composer: additional music" for a documentary posted on Vimeo is encyclopedic-worthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The percentage of the article that is editorial vs. statement/interview is immaterial. The sources themselves are notable and accordingly, coverage by these sources itself is notable.  Bloody Disgusting, Paste are reputable sites/blogs not content aggregators.  This counts as independent third party significant coverage.  I do not believe any of the sites cited are user submitted sites and triviality and importance can be debated.  Several of the sites cited including Antihero, Brutal Resonance, and Coma Music are genre specific sites and while they may not have the unique visitor count that Paste has they are culturally relevant, impactful, and notable within specific music genres.  The IMDB reference is cited to prove the work in the Neil Gaiman film.  Distribution via Vimeo direct does not reduce the notability of the film and subject.  A google search for the film (which someone needs to write an article for) returns coverage at Entertainment Weekly, Collider, Nerdist, Deadline .   Pluffleses (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)  —This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your statements are only partially correct. Yes, it is third party coverage. But is it significant coverage? There's only 2 sources present, and they both seem extremely short. Considering how much of the article remains unsourced, or covered by first party sources, I would think that there is not significant coverage. Also, the content itself is important to factor in. Things like "interviews" and "press releases" are often not considered to be "third party coverage", even if posted by a third party website, because the account is largely (sometimes entirely) from the first party itself. Sergecross73   msg me  18:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  06:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Composer: Additional Music specifically means music that is not the theme music or orchestration. An example: "Eye of the Tiger" from the movie "Rocky".Pluffleses (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment This has already been relisted once and it is now on AfD discussion day 15. I request this discussion be closed with KEEP consensus.  The concerns of the editor and user were addressed in the above comments and article was reinforced with further citations.Pluffleses (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — This SPA editor (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may only give a bolded stance once, and while you're free to advocate a "Keep", its ludicrous to claim that there is a consensus to keep, when, at the point of writing that, it was literally 1 to 1 as far as delete vs keep stances go. (and 2 vs 1 including the deletion nominator.) That's literally not the definition of a consensus. Sergecross73   msg me  18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The article is currently very WP:PROMOTIONAL sounding, with lots of name-dropping going on, and is mostly unsourced or sourced to first-party accounts. The third party sources - there seem to be two - cover very little of the subject, leaving much of it unsourced or sourced to first party accounts. And that's if they're even considered reliable at all. The article creator's argument for their reliability is based solely on web traffic, not our hallmarks of writer credentials, editorial policy, etc. If the (unsourced) claim that the subject is currently working with music producer Ulrich Wild is true, it could be more of a WP:TOOSOON situation - maybe the sourcing will come down the line - but right now, the sourcing just isn't good enough, especially for a WP:BLP. Sergecross73   msg me  18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:30, 1 April 2017 (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.