Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stine Richard (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   delete. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Stine Richard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography is not of a notable subject.

I have searched Google for other sources, but have failed to find any beyond the active links cited in the article. I cannot find any article mentioning Stine Richard in the Crawley Observer, in The Birmingham Mail, or on Yahoo News, though there are irrelevant or dead citations that point to these domains.

With that in mind, I will compare the article to the necessary criteria listed in Wikipedia's guidelines.

The subject of the article fails to meet the necessary criteria for a musician (WP:BAND)

The page only mentions trivial appearances in unreliable sources, citations 15 (http://www.contactmusic.com/single-review/stine-richard-silver-girl-feat-n-deyex09x06x09) and 11 (http://thehearingaid.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/peeping-at-nme.html). The latter is unverifiable as it comes from an unreliable source, and the former does not in itself constitute enough notability.

The only remaining relevant citation points to a Flickr photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guildofstudents/575165664/), which I think would be deemed below par under 'articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar).'

Additionally, I feel that as the remainder of the information under 'music hobby' is very detailed but lacks any citations, it must have been written from a personal perspective, meaning it may fall under WP:PROMOTION.

The subject himself is not an academic, creative professional, or any other category of biography, and so must meet the the basic criteria and criteria for 'any biography'.

There is not a substantial depth of coverage to prove notability, nor are there multiple independent sources available that could be combined to demonstrate notability.

There are no primary sources linked to the article, beyond the link to Holla@Me, which is an unverifiable source.

The subject has not received a well known or significant award or honor, nor has he been nominated once or many times.

The person has not made any widely recognized contribution in any field.

The article may also violate the following guidelines:

WP:NOTADVERTISING - Though not blatant, some of the only few citations that correctly link to external sources point to the person's own product.

WP:GNG - The only reliable secondary source is (the one that comments how bad Stine's music is.) I would argue that this is not enough coverage to constitute a standalone page, and it is not verifiable.

WP:NRVE - There is no verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

WP:PROMOTION - The article contains too much personal information that could not likely be known to people beyond themselves and close acquaintances, e.g quote from graduation speech, details of music hobby without citations, details of early years with no citations.

WP:NOTTEMPORARY - The source produced only one verifiable song, and no more have been released. The article points out that no more are likely to be released, though the fact is unverifiable as there are no citations: > In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

The subject has an interview with VentureGiant which counts as a primary source to prove that he is the founder of Holla@Me. However, as Holla@Me has no notable characteristics beyond that it has received funding, I would assert this falls under the conditions of Basic Criteria. The criteria prefers secondary sources. A single primary source would not count as enough coverage, and does not provide much information as it is primarily quoting the subject himself. Other citations in the same contexts are either dead, irrelevant, or point to the subject's own website.

More notes regarding status as a musician.

I have used search engines and searched article cited websites for details.

Cannot find any evidence of Stine Richard having a single or album in any country's national music chart. The article that existed for one of his songs (has now been speedily deleted as it failed verification) was not listed in any charts, and I cannot find any other sources for his music beyond videos on YouTube.

Cannot find any evidence that he has a record certified gold or higher in any countries.

Cannot find any evidence of non-trivial coverage of a national or international concert tour.

Article does not list any complete albums, and there is no evidence of any complete albums.

Artist is not an ensemble, or a member of two or more notable ensembles.

Is not a prominent representative of a notable style.

Has not won or been nominated for a major music award.

No evidence of winning or placing in a major music competition. Article claims artist auditioned at Emergenza in 2006, but he is not mentioned on the Emergenze page as a winner or at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergenza#2006), nor can I find any reference of his relation to the competition through search engines.

Has not performed works that have appeared in notable media or performance. Works are not included in any notable compilation album, though article mentions collaboration with other artists. Perhaps that information should be moved to other artists page, if there is one (e.g feat lexy).

No evidence found of being placed in rotation on any major radio or music television network. I checked Google, and searched MTV, but found nothing.

Has not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment on national radio. Cannot find anything on this. Bibblybobbly (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Sources offered are either dead links, irrelevant, trivial or primary and thus unsuitable.  Googling turned up nothing useful.  Additionally, I note that the previous AfD result was delete for the same reasons and that the article appears to be the work of one or more SPAs.  Msnicki (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the article's sources are enough to establish notability, and I've been unable to find anything that would. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - That's probably the most thorough nomination I've seen to date at AFD. I'll also add that even the dead links would seem to indicate that indpendent coverage is lacking.  Looking at the URL of teh Houston Chronicle dead link : http://www.chron.com/business/press-releases//business/press-releases/article/Holla-Me-A-New-Social-Networking-Experience-3789316.php shows "press release" in the path indicating this is a press release and not an actual article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Looks thoroughly NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (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.