Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure the Spin Dr.


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Structure the Spin Dr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A DJ. Unable to find a ref that does more than a brief mention of him. His claim to fame and the reason why the Prod was contested, is he played before a WBC title fight. Unable to find he has released any music. Bgwhite (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've taken a look at the links you've guided me to, and WP:MUSICBIO does state Structure is notable. Point 10 of WP:MUSICBIO places notability on the production of a theme or execution of a performance by a musician for a notable television show. If the notability of a televised event is demonstrated by depth of coverage, then the Briggs Klitschko fight would qualify (there are dozens and dozens of references of the fight, before, during and after it happened). Ergo, yes, the DJ playing a performance to introduce one of the fighters and otherwise score the event on television at this match on ESPN is more notable than a referee or ring girl. (On a side note, most of the boxing referee pages actually point to the opposite of what you are saying--that they are indeed notable purely through their refereeing and without very many other sources). Point 10 does not require the performance be referenced by anything but the show itself, and a reference has been provided proving ESPN showcases and refers to him during the broadcast. While normally attachment to a significant event would not provide notability, in this case the guideline states that it does indeed provide notability in this instance. Point 7 also allows for notability if a musician is a very significant figure within a local scene. The interview included at the bottom is of an indie news source that exhibits his prevalence within a particular subgenre--should I add this as a reference in the actual article? His residences at the top nightclubs in NYC also contribute to notability under point 7, as the top representatives of a local DJ scene are the top residents at the top clubs. As regards your point on interviews, I think there is a misunderstanding. I've not used any claims from the interview as if they were inherently reliable as you infer that I have; I was just stating that the act of interviewing an individual within an article features him beyond mere mention, adding to the depth of coverage in that particular piece. However, it is point 10 of the guidelines on musician notability that provides the greatest level of notability for Structure. I've also added an additional reference to Germany's top television network that talks about Structure in its lead up coverage to the fight, which makes three separate references to Structure at the fight (RTL, ESPN, and BILD), all of which are highly notable news outlets that felt Structure notable enough to talk about him in their coverage of the event. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Jeremy's arguments are unpersuasive. First off, we're not talking about an actual "performer," are we?  We're talking about a DJ working the sound system for songs other people have composed and other people have performed, so criterion #10 is off the table.  Secondly, with those other links, far from constituting "interviews," as Jeremy claims, they barely mention the subject; I discount, of course, the blogger on wix.com, which certainly doesn't constitute a reliable source as per WP:IRS.  Finally, we cannot remotely make the startling leap to infer that a fellow's presence at a party or two constitutes proof that he is a leading musician in a local scene; that needs to be stated, explicitly, by multiple reliable sources.   Ravenswing   04:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stating that a DJ is not an artistic performer is an archaic argument at this point that demonstrates a lack of knowledge about such musicians, and is only a matter of opinion--and I'm not sure this is the venue to have the debate over whether or not the acceptance of DJs as musicians in modern culture was a proper thing to do. I will add in the interview from Pink Avenue that explicitly states what you are asking for point #7 though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether a DJ is an "artistic performer" or not is, indeed, a discussion beyond this AfD's scope. It just isn't one for satisfying criterion #10.  As for the two cites you just added, the court case is plain trivia (and the only mention of the subject was to mock his name), while the Youtube link not only runs afoul of WP:EL, what makes this "Avenue Pink" a reliable, published source as per WP:IRS?   Ravenswing   20:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO itself states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Structure is a performer by definition of this policy.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage lacks depth necessary for WP:MUSICBIO; being tangentially involved with a theme doesn't cut it either. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still do not believe anybody has addressed issue 12 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" and 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc". Also, please explain what you mean by "tangentially involved in a theme", as this phrase is unclear. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: The criterion #10 issue has been addressed, and at length; I recognize that you don't care for or agree with the reasoning, but there it is. As far as the subject meeting criterion #12 goes, no one had addressed it for the simple reason that no one had raised an issue over it.  That being said, you surely can't be serious.  I saw the Youtube clip linked to the article, and what it showed, as the boxer entered the arena, were two cutaways to what (I presume) was the subject doing his thing.  He was neither named nor identified, the cutaways were about three seconds long each, and you couldn't hear the recordings he was playing over the broadcast's announcers.  To categorize this as a "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment" is absurd, and would just as accurately apply to the jingle musicians of TV/radio bumper music.   Ravenswing   20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Point 10 has not been addressed, it is being picked apart :) The criterion states specifically that a person can perform a theme for a television show. It does not state the length of time in which that performance must be played--some tv theme songs are less than 15 seconds long, but they would absolutely qualify underneath this segment of the rule. The Youtube clip is evidence that Structure was not only heard but shown on ESPN during Briggs' entrance; the clip is not the reference being cited itself. Is the work of media (the television broadcast) notable? According to the breadth of coverage of the television event and viewership yes it was. Did Structure play a theme for the broadcast? Yes he did--not only that, but he was shown during the broadcast playing it. This goes beyond what almost every other performer does for similar segments or themes--if he is non-notable as you infer, why show him? Why cover him on television? That's not the point however, because he was shown on television and he did perform the theme which means, by the very definition of this clause he is notable under the bio musician clause. Is he extraordinarily notable? Of course not, but few Wikipedia subjects are, and by the black and white definition of this policy he is notable. The only real argument is whether or not it's enough for him to have his own article, and I've already included this event in the Briggs article in case of that event. Following the logic, blind of all efforts to apply caveats on the criterion, Structure is notable in this case. I'm not fighting for this article to be kept for its own sake, I'm trying to impart my reading of the logic of this criterion and each reply doesn't have the same logic to it. I've heard that A) he is not a performer and B) he is only tangentially involved, which is untrue. The individual performed the theme solo--how is that tangential? And WP:MUSICBIO itself states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". It states in the very definition of the policy that a DJ is recognized as a performer. The argument is just plain wrong. Following up on some other points, equating a television theme to radio bumper music is inaccurate as per point 10 of the policy and is a matter of your own opinion. In addition, just check the rest of the sources to confirm it was Structure who played during Briggs' entrance, you don't have to presume (the sources do not state that more than one was playing at the time). You also appear to be assuming that the quality of recording was equivalent to the quality it would have been in broadcast, which one cannot know, but I would likely presume was not. But that doesn't matter at all--the quality of sound in a program. The only thing that matters is if the subject literally passes one of the litmus tests, which they do. Again, criterion #10 has not been addressed, what has occurred is that the merits of a literal reading of criterion #10, and the use of it period, is being called into question, which is not the purpose of this AFD. Nor is a discussion of whether or not certain editors feel that DJs don't qualify as performers, as they have provided no reliable evidence of this theory. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Benefit of the doubt stuff - probably just meets the criteria for notability, depending on how widely read the indie newspaper is.Chriscook54321 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2012 (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.