Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threatin


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Threatin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Article was created by a SPA with a likely COI, see Special:Contributions/LisaGolding. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There is No COI. I noticed the need for the article and focused on fulfilling it. Passes WP:MUSICBIO. Meets criteria 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 for musicians and ensembles. Also meets criteria 4 for composers and lyricists. LisaGolding (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the regular usage of promotional language such as "the famous musician Threatin" and "an award-winning solo artist who recently rose to fame and is considered one of the most influential figures in current Rock music" in your edit summaries? In any case, the subject does not meet criteria 4, obviously does not meet 5 as they have not even released 2 albums, does not meet 9, does not meet 11, and does not meet 12 of MUSICBIO. Also does not meet #4 of COMPOSER. The article contains no reliable sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Does meet criteria 4. multiple national & international tours (outlined in article). Meets criteria 5. Numerous releases that include album and 3 “singles” that were categorically released as EPs internationally. (Wikipedia does not make distinction between EP and album content in criteria.) Meets criteria 9 via Artist of the Year award from music publication. (noted in article). Meets criteria 11: received national and international airplay on major radio outlets. (noted in article) Meets criteria 12 via featured on Music Choice television program. Meets 4 of composers via award (noted in article.)
 * Promotional language not intended or used in article. I did Not view descriptive words in edit summary as being biased or even relevant to scrutiny (since it isn’t part of the article). Again, Promotional language not intended LisaGolding (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you voting twice? Hzh (talk)
 * You can't vote twice in an AfD discussion, I have struck your second vote. The article does not contain any reliable sources, every reference is related to the subject or to sites such as "toprockpress.com", "celebritymusicscene.com", etc. Nothing in the article is verified, so you cannot cite the article as evidence that the subject meets the criteria. I'm not going to go too deep down this rabbit hole but this is all seems to be an elaborate promotional scheme, which has not worked out due to the article averaging 3 views per day (this is not typical of "an award-winning solo artist who recently rose to fame and is considered one of the most influential figures in current Rock music.") Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete with prejudice. Article looks pretty but on examination the sources are all primary, user-generated or fake. No coverage in any of the sources where you'd expect a rock musician to be covered, e.g. Rolling Stone, Billboard, Pitchfork, NME, or in any mainstream press (LA Times, NY Times, not even a tabloid). MaxBrowne (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC. Somebody has obviously worked pretty hard on the article, but without independent, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources then this fails the general notability guide. — sparklism hey! 10:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost speedy. Promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Someone is working hard to turn him into a rock star but it hasn't happened yet. On claims above, touring lacks coverage, eps are not full albums, label is not an "important" one, award is not major, claimed airplay is not national. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete It's almost comical in it's peacock language ("prominent label"..."highly anticipated"..."released globally"--FWI, I guess wikipedia editors could be considered "authors whose words are read globally," LOL) that is backed up by zero reliable sources. As stated, everything is user generated, self-download, first-person, etc. An obvious attempt by publicists to package a client, including creating content for dubious sources such as "New York Music Review" and "Top Rock Press," which seem to exist only to promote this person. Perhaps it's unfair for this subject, as he may genuinely find success someday and merit an article, but this one as it is is a gross example of how the internet can be abused to hype ones way into notability. (Just for fun, I clicked on the "Followers" link on his Twitter to see how legitimate his fan base is. Unsurprisingly, it's mostly accounts from click farms from the other side of the world.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete without Prejudice - I think that the SPA accusations for everything related to Threatin might be a little too harsh; LisaGolding might just be someone new to WP who is knowledgeable on the musician but got carried away trying to prove his notability. I did the same back in my early WP days when creating articles on a regional band that I knew about. In any case, I will merely add to the above "Delete" votes that there is evidence that Mr. Threatin exists, but WP:EXIST and WP:TOOSOON are relevant in addition to the other guidelines already noted on the quality of the sources. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is generally the right course of action to AGF regarding article creation that could just be the product of an overzealous new editor, but there are too many coincidences regarding the creator of these articles and the type of sources being cited. The "New York Music Review" source is particularly egregious: it pretends to be a sister site of the NYT, yet is actually a .wordpress, and seemingly has no other articles on its domain other than the one about the subject of this AfD. Promotional tripe such as this undermines the whole encyclopedia. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2018 (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.