Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyti


 * 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. Consensus is neither the quality nor the quantity are sufficient Star   Mississippi  02:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Pyti

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not convinced that there's enough here to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Claims to have "won several international and national competitions" but it's not immediately clear from the sources whether these are notable. English language sources are mainly promotional puff pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article meets criteria number 1. There are detailed critical reviews in AllHipHop and The Source.--Roxy177 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The review in The Source is certainly an interesting one. I ran some of the text through a search engine and found large parts of it copied verbatim from reviews of other artists.
 * The Source article was written by "SHA BE ALLAH", while no specific author was listed for Billboard Hip hop. Even if it were the same person, it signals lazy churnalism rather than a serious review. One thing you'll notice is that it has a lot of broad statements that can be applied to just about any electronic musician. It's a similar style of writing that you also find in the AllHipHop review.-KH-1 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a funny fact about this particular review. I read this one, there are a lot of unique content too, but even a few copy-pasted sentences from another artist doesn't prove much about lack of notability. We can't rely on this while discussing whether there is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO or not.--Roxy177 (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We're talking about entire paragraphs from multiple sources, not just a "few copy-pasted sentences". It's clearly not a genuine review.-KH-1 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Other parts of it are lifted from someone else's 2019 post about another artist at https://thebandcampdiaries.com/post/187924964897/nogi-friday-pendulums-nogi-friday-is-an-artist and a February 2022 review of yet another artist at https://thebandcampdiaries.com/post/675244669067788288/suaveuk-has-recently-released-a-new-project. KH-1 is right.  A source that is actually a bad source, in this case turning out to be rampant plagiarism on the part of a writer at The Source and thus not even actually about this subject, does not count, and Roxy177's rationale is undermined by 1 source.  Unfortunately, that leaves us with 1 source, and some searching does not turn up any more.  Potential candidates turn out upon reading to be recycled press releases or an interview in the first person.  Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO says, that "Notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.". We should use WP:RS to verify something about our subject. We can still use this source for some information. Even if "The mix is balanced and very detail-oriented" and "The frequency spectrum of the mix is also very balanced" were copied, that can be applied to just about any electronic musician. That's right. KH-1 mentioned that. We can't know whether mix is balanced or not from that source anymore, but that's why here are the others. As for The Source, there are other sentences, for example: "which is a fantastic single that brings a deeper, soothing melody to the audience. The introduction has a really smooth vibe, and the song later dives deeper into the groove, with a massive electronic beat that matches the beautiful arpeggio synths." And you can apply it exclusively to subject's single "Night Wish', because it has arpeggios and those things, etc.--Roxy177 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Almost looks like a copyvio on their end. Non-notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, provide any additional info. Simply stating that the subject of the article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. We avoid saying "just notable" or "just non-notable". There are sources, a few of them are WP:RS, there are "several international and national competitions" and awards in those, which also deserve an attention. There are copy-pasted sentences in 1 source, we have discussed above, as well. --Roxy177 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2022 (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.