Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The green raver


 * 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 speedily deleted by The JPS per CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/The Green Raver). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The green raver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I find no reliable sources online with substantial coverage of this person. One might expect that the story of the eBay sale indicates a pre-existing notability such that someone might actually cough up $14,999—on the third bid!—for the first copy of the album. But take a look at the sources given: (1) the eBay listing itself; (2) Spotify, i.e., social media; and (3) top40-charts-com, but the article is identical to this one, which is expressly a Green Raver press release. And there are virtually no Google hits for, and none at all for. So there are no independent sources verifying that this actually happened. Therefore, fails WP:N, and possibly WP:V as well. Largoplazo (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look up 'Green Raver Not For Human Consumption' as suggested, the first and second links on Google are for the album and another article referring to the Ebay site. It's insane to me that you can't look at the Ebay link itself and see the evidence.  The Ebay link is literally the second reference I've given.  I also provided a link to ANOTHER article.  But look at the Ebay link, and EBAY shows the price that the album was sold for.  Not sure who could dispute that this actually happened.


 * Is a similar debate being made about Wu-Tang Clans album which was sold under bizarre pretenses to Martin Shkreli for two million dollars? I doubt it, therefore the argument for deletion is fallacious and based purely on the pretense of assumed credibility.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siditious (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC) ‎
 * Just because something happened, doesn't mean it gets an article on Wikipedia. Ab eBay sale would need coverage in secondary sources to be reported on Wikipedia. The Wu-Tang Clan sale was reported in reliable secondary sources such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the point. Wu-Tang Clan is extremely well known. There isn't any evidence that The Green Raver is particularly well known in the first place, so in the second place one wouldn't expect a Green Raver album to go for the same sort of price that a Wu-Tang Clan album would go for. Showing an eBay listing itself proves nothing, since one could (I'm not at all saying this is what happened, but it could happen, and certainly would explain an apparent anomaly of this sort) stage an auction in which one creates separate eBay logins and "buys" an item from oneself while making it look like an arms-length transaction. That is why the eBay page isn't proof. And even if it makes it look plausible, it doesn't alter the fact that this amazing sale has apparently gained no attention, which means that you have a notability problem whether or not you also have a verifiability problem. Largoplazo (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:52, 17 April 2017 (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.