Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ToTs (rapper)


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 22:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ToTs (rapper)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable musician. The potato thing is a nice gimmick, maybe, but the article lacks reliable sources that establish notability. I had trimmed some of it, hoping to improve the article, but discovered that it was all blogs, basically, and various Google searches (for ToTs and including such terms as "Heagerty" and "potato") produced no reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the definition of non-notable? The artist is accepted by the iTunes store and has received coverage from three separate national sources. Granted, I was the original writer of the article, but I thought coverage of ToTs from a USA Today source, an ABC News outlet and the Universal Record Database merited an entry. He has received plenty of local (Syracuse, NY area) attention since starting out but it was the attention from these reputable, national outlets that put ToTs over the top in my mind as a valuable entry. NzMattis 18:36, 10 January 2011 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.251.6 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The first of 16,900 results in google for Heagerty rapper potato is the USA Today article, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2010/06/guest-blogger-have-you-met-the-worlds-only-potato-rapper/1. He was also featured by the Village Voice blogs among other non-local sites. Yes, the potato thing is a gimmick, but so is most of what Gaga or most other pop musicians do. Just because he has a gimmick should not disqualify him from having a page. The key is, his gimmick has brought him a reasonable level of fame and recognition beyond his home city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.48.219 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete. Creative? Yes. Notable? Not yet, I'm afraid. I couldn't find much significant coverage for him either. In addition, simply having music available on iTunes does not automatically pass WP:MUSICBIO (much like having a book available on Amazon doesn't automatically pass WP:AUTHOR).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

NzMattis here again. After looking at the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines, I still believe you can make a case for ToTs being a justified addition. Under the general criteria for musicians/songwriters, ToTs fits particularly with numbers one (being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself) and seven (becoming one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city). His coverage in USA Today, The Village Voice, ABC News and the Universal Record Database in addition to local Syracuse press establishes the need for "multiple, non-trivial" works from "reliable" and "independent" sources. In regards to standard seven, his genre is entirely unique and it's pushed him to become one of, if not the most, well-known local act currently in Syracuse.

Elsewhere in those guidelines I believe there is an additional supporting case for ToTs. Under "other" for non-traditional mass media entities, it notes under section one that someone can be notable if they are "cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." Under section three, there is a slight variation for an entity's work with genre where being noteworthy is defined as "established a tradition or school in a particular genre." ToTs is based largely on defining his own sub-genre of rap or hip-hop based solely on potatoes and coverage of him describes him as the creator of this approach. NzMattis (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the references with one exception provide significant coverage about ToTs. The one exception is the blog article by Mattise but this is a guest reader on a blog so is not a reliable source. Nothing in the external links is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * canvasing. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I outlined what I believed were the independent, reliable sources asked for by duffbeerforme above. As for my particular article, I consider myself to be a journalist as many of the posters during that week were. Guest posters on USA Today's Pop Candy are selected via a pitch process like any major editorial outlet and other posters included reliable sources such as the president of the American Mustache Institute, a background actor from major motion films, author Meg Cabot and musician Angelique Kidjo. I struggle in defining that, as an individual source, as unreliable. Arguing a lack in quantity of sources is different in my eyes (though I think there is enough there too).

I question the claims of lacking neutrality just because I am a local journalist writing an article that includes a reference to a piece I wrote for a local figure. However, for the "canvasing," I apologize if it's not allowed to promote the discussion page (although promoting the article itself leads folks here to begin with). Again, based on the comments this talk page has, I'd say that informed discourse has gone on and not mere fan-promotion for the act. This is certainly a learning process for me as a Wiki editor that I did not get to experience in other entries I created such as Phantogram_(band) and Dinner With The Band, so I hope the discourse continues until a conclusion is reached.

Finally, I again struggle to say that this article lacks in quantity based on some of the other band pages I've seen (for instance, try a page like The Rollo Treadway within the same New York musician sub-genre). Is there a specific number of sources an article needs to hit that deems it as qualified? The WP:MUSICBIO guidelines that I've read did not indicate such a standard. NzMattis (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No disrespect is intended by calling your blog post an "unreliable" source. WP:RS details what is considered a reliable source. The relevant info I partly based my comment on is in WP:BLOGS. The original blogger is part of a well respected source and may be considered a pop culture "expert" but her "expertise" is not inherited by her guest bloggers. You're reposting by a blogger on holiday does not impart the same relevance as her own blog posts do.
 * On the other sources: ABC news is about the program he is working with, not about ToTs, Whitney Matheson's blog post is not significant coverage of ToTs, i'ts just pointing out the news item about the program he is involved with. The village voice peice is a trivial mention of a joke world record. URB references are a social media website dedicated to documenting trivial "world records".
 * Your referance to other articles, as bad as they may be (feel free to improve or nominate for deletion other articles that lacks in quality) matters not to this article (WP:OTHERSTUFF).
 * Whats the specific number of sources an article needs depends on the amount of their coverage of the subject, their relative reliabity and the scope of their coverage. two can be enough. a dozen can fall short. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2011 (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.