Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restlezz (musician)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Restlezz (musician)

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

The sources that are available are PR sources in Nigerian newspapers. I am suspecting that the creator is paid to make these edits and the articles in the Nigerian papers are there to aid him in his undisclosed paid editing. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Reading Beans (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that [[File:Restlezz holding plaque.jpg]] was uploaded on the same month of writing this page on Wiki. Definitely for promotional purposes. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * [[File:Restlezz_holding_plaque.jpg]] was added so as to improve the subject notability status to the new page reviewers so that the subject charting record would be used as a point for the subject notability and not the other way around about it being a way to promote the subject the article clearly meets up with wikipedia standards for neutrality because no promotional tag was added in the last couple months it was created. with love reading beans Digitalageohio (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A photograph was uploaded to support the subject's notability?!? Under which criteria would that be proof or even an "improvement", as you wrote, of notability? This is just original work undertaken by a contributor for purposes of promotion, acting either in a professional capacity or as a fan. Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Rapper from central Utah, popular in Nigeria. Good grief, this is getting silly. There are no sources other than what's in the article, from Nigeria. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good day @Oaktree b i think you are ignoring other sources like resident advisor, the source, all hiphop and earmilk they too are notable sources for music related topics according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources with love from the ohio. Digitalageohio (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sock strike. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (This Article should not be deleted because it meets the Standards on Wikipedia guidelines on notability from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GNG&redirect=no Reliable Sources, the citations used in the Subject Article are from reliable sources, The Source, All Hiphop Earmilk, Vangaurd, and Tribune Online these are reliable sources as said in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources )
 * Significant Coverage The subject has had significant coverage you can look over the citations he was on an interview with Earmilk a Reliable trusted source for Wikipedia on music-related subjects.
 * Reliable Wikipedia already listed these sources as reliable so the citations from these sources were used in the article.
 * Sources and it's not from a single source it's from multiple sources, not just one and they all meet Wikipedia standards for neutrality and reliability.
 * Independent of the subject The sources used for citations are independent of the subject as you can use they are from Major Newspapers publication that can't sell their reputation because of a subject.
 * As you can see the Subject Restlezz meets all the standards for Wikipedia neutrality and notability as stated in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
 * Talking About Notability the subject has a Knowledge Panel Generated by Google Knowledge Panels that cant be bought or created it's autogenerated when an entity is a public figure that is well known AchillesWinner94 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * AchillesWinner94's contributions to Wikipedia are almost exclusively on the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep For notability the subject restlezz has a Google Knowledge Panel which can only be generated for notable musicians which their fans are looking up daily. also note that all the citations used on the subject article meet up with Wikipedia standards for neutrality and notability Tribune online, Vanguard this are independent bodies that are considered neutral by Wikipedia. All hiphop which is a reliable source for American news information has articles on the subject plus Earmilk also has information on the subject. plus with my investigations the subject has a good charting record if he is not notable then he will not be able to do that so in a nutshell.
 * The subject has multiple coverages in independent sources that meet up with and and also for notability and neutrality.
 * The subject has a generated knowledge panel By Google which is given to notable musicians
 * These are reasons enough to keep this article from deletion with what I have seen so far.Digitalageohio (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

sockstrike Girth Summit  (blether) 11:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: FYI: Having a Google Knowledge Panel is not a sign of notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Try as much as one might, there are simply not enough reliable, third-party, independent sources out there that could support our subject's claim to notability. Primary sources can't cut it. I read through the arguments to the contrary, posted above, and it was like a detailed course in "What arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". I mean, have pity on our work time, dear colleagues! -The Gnome (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. And the subject article has sources that meet up with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability  which says Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic. But there are independent sources that meet up with Wikipedia standards for notability and neutrality  for music related topics according to  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources  and  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources plus the subject has sources from some African newspapers that meet up with Wikipedia standards too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources. In a nut shell it meets up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Cheers Digitalageohio (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The subject has coverage in top American and African independent magazines and newspapers that are used for Wikipedia citations that meets up with Wikipedia notability standards. Resident Advisor, The Source, All Hiphop, Tribune Online, Earmilk, and also vanguard are sources that meet up with Wikipedia standards for notability and neutrality according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources and WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources the subject debuted with a collaboration with  Yo gotti popular American musical artist and is also an iTunes charting artist.  Digitalageohio (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good day reading beans you have no claim saying the sources used in Nigeria were paid for they are sources that meet up with wikipedia standards for notability and neutrality have a look your self https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources They only featured him because had a short shoutout with Nigerian musician and producer Ajura.  Digitalageohio (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sock strike. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * KeepThere's more then enough proof of reliable sources for this subjects notability. Some of you are skipping over the fact he has coverage from major American publications too that meet the reliable sources for Wikipedias list.
 * AchillesWinner94 (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking off duplicate !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: One keeps reading suggestions to Keep the text up in Wikipedia on the grounds that the subject is notable because there's a plethora of sources testifying to that. That's fine as expressions of personal opinion go but where are the sources? This is just a mass assertion of "there are sources", "he is notable", and "you see in the article why he is notable", the sum of which has about zero value in AfD discusions. Could we please meet the notability criteria in a proper manner? Otherwise, there is no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Good day @The Gnome talking about meeting the notability criteria right okay kindly look at this in this way.
 * According to Notability this are the main points for the general notability guidelines.
 * "Significant coverage" the subject has a significant coverage made on the articles used for citations and also in the subject article it self.
 * "Reliable" each sources used are reliable as they meet up with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources
 * "Sources" this talks about how multiple sources should be used on any subject article and in this case multiple sources where used this also talks about how the sources do not need to be much in numbers but have to describe the subject on depth which they do and because they are also independent of the subject as the article was not written in a way to promote the subject in any way possible.
 * "Independent of the subject" sources are independent of the subject  because if you look carefully sources used are magazines and newspapers that are independent and unbiased if they were not they will not have been used as sources cited in
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources Digitalageohio (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Digitalageohio's comments are being stricken off because the user has been identified as a sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely. The above comments are left up in order to provide context for the rebuttal immediately below. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep posting up Wikipedia's guidelines in unnecessary detail and repeatedly too, Digitalageohio. This is simply clutter masquerading as argument. You are the creator of the contested article so you might find it obligatory to defend your creation but, to the point, the sources are not enough in either quantity or quality to satisfy then notability criteria. Simple as that. But let's cut deeper.


 * Forensics
 * • The most known source quotes is the Billboard one, whose article, however, is not about Restlezz but about "the Rise of Yo Gotti and Collective Music Group". Restlezz is not even mentioned there. If you think that Yo Gotti's notability rubs off on Restlezz on account of their collaboration you are mistaken. Then we get assorted reviews of records, such as the Earmilk review of Tyrant Takeover, a  one-liner of "Get It How U Live" in MusicApple, and so on. But these are not about Sandoval.


 * • The article quotes twice the same link to a Nigerian Tribune 2023 article, written by a "content creator," but that's not too important. What's important and rather revelatory is that Restlezz "does not [even] have a record label deal" and is just now "making a name for himself in the music industry." Yet, you want this artist, one among literally millions in the same place as him, to have a Wikipedia biography. The article also quotes an article in Vanguard that rips open the advertorial aspect of most such "sources." Both  Tribune and Vanguard have slavishly and lazily repeated the same paragraph about Restlezz fed to them by the artist's people. This one: After realizing the importance of networking, Sandoval Jr reached out to artists outside of Ogden. He has since worked with prominent artists such as Yo Gotti, T-Pain, Bizarre of D12, Stat Quo, Mistah Fab, and Big Omeezy. He has over a million streams on Spotify, has charted iTunes twice, and has been featured in multiple articles, including Allhiphop, The Source, and Thisis50."
 * Which makes the claim about "independent sourcing" laughable.


 * • We also get listings of Restlezz music in Spotify but this is like offering as a source the phone directory: Spotify lists all its content.


 * • Another link is thrice offered. The Source had an article about Restlezz as an "up and coming" artist like a myriad of other aspiring artists. And we are fed that article three times, which maybe is right because it's actually an admonition to wait, to suggest that it's just simply too soon for a Wiki bio, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * i feel since the subject meets Verifiability and Notability guidelines and standards the article should not be deleted. Digitalageohio (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as was pointed out time and again here, unsubstantiated assertions that "the subject is notable" do not amount to much in an AfD discussion. The subject, as shown in detail above, most certainly does not meet the required criteria of verifiable notability. Perhaps, after some time he will. -The Gnome (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * CU note I have just blocked the article's creator,, as a sock of . I've have struck through their !vote above, but they have made quite a few other comments here and it would be tiresome to go through striking them all; suffice it to say that they should be disregarded. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:50, 23 August 2023 (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.