Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Terreberry (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Terreberry
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a musician and YouTuber, not reliably sourced well enough to override the prior deletion at Articles for deletion/Steve Terreberry. Nothing here constitutes an "inherent" claim of notability that would guarantee instant passage of our notability criteria for musicians or YouTubers, so it all comes down to the quality of his sources -- but this is about 75 per cent reference bombed to his own YouTube videos and/or his music metaverifying its own existence on Spotify, which are not notability-building sources. And what's left after that is a mix of unreliable blogs, a tiny WP:BLP1E blip in the context of being invited to tour with a band but backing out due to anxiety and thus not fulfilling NMUSIC's touring criterion, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, which does not help to establish his notability as he is not the subject of those sources. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more coverage in real media than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The ref bombing was my fault as I wanted to be clear that these songs were released to Spotify by the artist and the existing sources were poor and likely to change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, I only created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:GNG. I agree the refbombing was unnecessary, and the YouTube sources do not contribute to notability, but are usable per WP:PRIMARYCARE. I'm not sure which sources you consider blogs, but the subject has featured in MetalSucks   (generally reliable per WP:RSMUSIC), MusicRadar  (seems editorially sound, reliable per WP:RSINSTRUMENT), Metal Injection (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC), Loudwire   (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC) Ultimate Guitar     (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC) Guitar World    (reliable per WP:RSINSTRUMENT), Alternative Press   (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC). I'm not sure which unreliable blogs you mean. Yeah, some of this stuff is short blurbs on videos he has released, but there is a good amount of in depth stuff here in vetted publications. Mbdfar (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Blabbermouth.net and Exclaim! (both reliable per WP:RSMUSIC, though these are both DragonForce related). All of these references span 7 years of coverage, so I'd argue against WP:BLP1E as well. Mbdfar (talk)
 * A few more for fun. New Atlas (previously Gizmag.com; no consensus on reliability, at least was found to have an editorial board), Gear Gods  (can't find any discussion on reliability, though it is a sister site of MetalSucks). Here's a couple more Ultimate Guitar articles by a staff writer.  Mbdfar (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if WP:ROUTINE applies per What is and is not routine coverage. I guess the articles could be considered "light and amusing", but this is notability for coverage of a person and not a single event, so I'm not sure anything from Notability (events) is applicable. Mbdfar (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the case for the sources with an author, https://www.musicradar.com/news/the-12-best-online-guitar-personalities-in-the-world-right-now https://www.metalsucks.net/2020/06/03/seven-youtube-guitarists-worth-following/ https://www.guitarworld.com/news/what-if-deathcore-sounded-happy-video https://www.altpress.com/news/so_heres_what_elevatorcore_would_sound_like/ https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/dragonforce-parts-ways-with-longtime-bassist-frederic-leclercq-temporary-replacement-announced/ have no author. The ones at ultimate-guitar.com (the ones with the most coverage) are essentially blogs by a nonprofessional writer. So the routine nature of the rest are "Steve T. released a new video. Check it out." Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about Ultimate Guitar. Per RSMUSIC, "Only cite articles written by "UG Team" or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere." All articles I cited are by members of the UG writers team. There is a lot of coverage of the subject on that website, more than I have here. Almost all of the sources you handpicked say they were authored by staff of sites that have been found to be reliable, so I don't see the issue. If the subject was a WP:MILL YouTuber, they wouldn't be showcasing his releases. Mbdfar (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * jomatami is the author of all or the ultimate-guitar articles you've linked here. He is on the writers list. WP:RSMUSIC Thanks for that link. The writers link moved. We should update the source. Walter Görlitz

(talk) 23:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing that there is so much coverage, this would qualify under WP:BASIC even if the coverage in any one source are not in-depth. Peter303x (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as long the sources are not "here is his latest video" or anything of that nature.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The coverage here is pretty trivial, and it's not clear that the publications themselves are particularly reliable or notable. Some of the material is overly promotional, and it makes one wonder if the publications themselves are truly independent of the subject. All together, it lacks the depth of coverage that one would expect for an artist to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your qualms about how in depth some of the articles are, but consensus at WP:RSMUSIC has found the publications I've outlined above to be reliable (I made it clear which ones have not yet been discussed). If you believe them to be biased, perhaps another discussion should be started. IMO, there is enough detailed sources in that pile to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Mbdfar (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you stated so above and don't need to repeat yourself. I came to a different conclusion. Largely because you have cited industry magazines where reliability and independence are not always clear, and the articles themselves are more plugs to sell merchandise witch kickbacks to the magazine and the artist. These don't rise to the level of independence for a high quality sourcing that is necessary to establish WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with community consensus regarding these sources, perhaps you should start a discussion on the relevant WikiProject page. Mbdfar (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seeing that there is so much coverage, this would qualify under WP:BASIC even if the coverage in any one source are not in-depth. Peter303x (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2021 (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.