Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roach (rapper)


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Roach (rapper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Other than the claim that one of his videos received a million views on YouTube, there really wasn't any other claim of notability here. The YouTube view claim, if true, still doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NMUSIC on its own. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of the most widely accepted methods of demonstrating notability is via significant coverage in reliable sources, and it would really help to search for such coverage before bringing articles to AfD. The subject here has received coverage from Pitchfork Media (3 album reviews), MTV (multiple articles), VICE, XXL, SPIN, Prefix, HipHopDX, FACT magazine, and others. Easily passess WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. These independent label musicians often get a very short spurt of coverage from multiple sources — and then die away as far as mainstream coverage is concerned.  WP:15M applies, I believe.  --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources.  Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors.  WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there.  Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked.  I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria.  --Nlu (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These boilerplate responses suggest that as little effort has gone into them as the original nominations. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This response shows that you are not attempting to respond to the logic at all. Again, you search for the person, all you see are trade links, not general coverage.  Minor leaguer, if that.  If you think that WP:NMUSIC is underinclusive, open a discussion to change those guidelines.  Someone who is well-versed in the music scene, as apparently you have, may overthink a musician's importance, — just as a baseball enthusiast will overthink a minor leaguer's importance.  Overall, that minor leaguer is still not notable until/unless he makes it to the majors (in general; sometimes the minor leaguer will make GNG on other grounds); same for musicians.  If they haven't made it to the bigs, they're not notable.  --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Magazine and news coverage is not 'trade links'. If you actually understood the notability guidelines you'd know that WP:NMUSIC is satisfied here. And none of these discussions have anything to do with baseball so I suggest giving up on that line of argument. --Michig (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage may be sufficient unless they are trivial (under the exception to 1), and that's still how I am seeing it. You may not like the minor leaguer analogy, but that's what I think is an apt analogy.  You don't have to agree with it.  You don't get to tell others what to argue and what not to argue.  --Nlu (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. We don't (and shouldn't) dismiss sports-centric sources such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated when establishing the notability of athletes. Similarly, it's perfectly reasonable for the notability of musicians to be established from coverage in music sources, so long as the sources in question are considered reliable and independent of the subject. In this case, Pitchfork (x3) and MTV (x2) (along with the other sources above) clearly meet the WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO#1 standard.  Gong   show  21:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a ~210-word review in The New York Times, for what it's worth.  Gong   show  02:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC through independent coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism hey! 11:59, 8 January 2014 (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.