Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Karter


 * 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. All "keep" opinions are by very new and/or low-editcount accounts or IPs, a sign of sockpuppetry or canvassing.  Sandstein  06:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Travis Karter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMUSIC - the subject has only received substantial coverage in student newspapers and is (seemingly) unsigned. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Upon Review, Article is Valid and does not Violate WP:NMUSIC Hey SmartSE, upon review of the criteria, this is a valid article, which does not fail WP:NMUSIC

WP:NMUSIC outlines several core grounds upon which credibility may be established–

“Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself” which it has, with multiple of the sources being recognized as credible and notable by wikipedia itself."

For WP:NMUSIC notability, subjects are required to satisfy only ONE of the delineated criteria, while this article satisfies multiple: namely: #1, #10, and #12, as this artist has been covered on nationally broadcasted syndicate television.

It is also important for to note that record label signing is not a requirement for notability. 128.220.159.56 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 128.220.159.56 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep After looking over WP:NMUSIC, I agree with 128.220.159.56 that this article meets multiple requirements for notability and doesn't fail WP:NMUSIC. 2600:1003:B006:74BA:6418:544D:FDDD:E7E2 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NMUSIC criteria #1 requires "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." – While The Johns Hopkins source is the only source which is arguably not independent of the musician itself, the article meets this requirement with verified publication by Harvard, Cornell, and a documented appearance on national television.
 * WP:NMUSIC Criteria #10 provides notability for having performed music appearing in notable media, or "performance in a television show or notable film" – the artist is documented appearing on national television, performing a written song in an interview.
 * Likewise, WP:NMUSIC Criteria #12 gives notability if the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." – The subject is documented being interviewed and performing on national television.
 * In response to SmartSE – WP:NMUSIC does not at any point indicate that notability is contingent upon record label association, nor does it indicate that the sources used in this article are of any less merit. It only requires notable publication, and all of the sources used in this article seem to be recognized by wikipedia.
 * Finally, WP:NMUSIC only requires at the miniumum one of its criteria to be met to establish notability– the article in question clearly meets three at least.


 * Delete, salt, and report author for undisclosed COI - Massive undisclosed WP:COI on author Andrewkazimi for being a huge fan and probably knowing the guy. Hey, SmartSE, maybe homework first next time?  How hard is it to google the author and subject together?  https://ar-new.com/online/travis-karter-ice-official-music-video-0yDZTyn8Xho.html  Seafox289 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Article is inkeeping with Wikipedia standard article guidelines, and does not fail WP:COI WP:COI violations constitute “contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.”
 * Hello Seafox289,

Furthermore, the article was written entirely in objective, academic language, utilizing information gathered from various credible, noted, and Wikipedia recognized sources, and is entirely inkeeping with all of Wikipedia’s rules and regulations.
 * I am in no way related to the subject, nor do I have any personal or acquaintance relationship with the subject whatsoever.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not qualify as a COI.

Seafox289, I am not sure about this one– but what I can say after reviewing WP:COI is that it specifically defines what constitutes a conflict of interest. Nowhere does it say that being a "fan" constitutes a conflict of interest. After looking through the wiki articles of multiple other "Artists of note", and googling the names of contributors, I find that it is quite common to find that the contributors of artists' articles are also fans of that artist's music. I also looked at the wiki pages of several sports teams and found the same. The article in question is written objectively, and does not at any point seem to me to indicate a conflict of interest. 2600:1003:B006:74BA:6418:544D:FDDD:E7E2 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia's guidelines In Guide_to_deletion Wikipedia’s guidelines identify “three cardinal criteria” an article must meet for validity. These are Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research I looked at the respective criteria for all three, and this article meets all three.
 * Information presented is well cited and verifiable
 * Sources are independently written
 * Throughout the article, the writing maintains a Neutral point of view.

I also looked at what other people are saying in regards to COI and WP:NMUSIC. After watching the subject's televised interview with Smile Jamaica, it is unquestionable that the article definitely meets at least criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC, which only requires at least one criteria to be met. In regards to WP:COI, this article does not violate COI by definition, and also I looked myself, and I couldn’t find any provable tangible connection between the author and the subject.

This article follows the three cardinal policies, and does not violate COI nor WP:NMUSIC and is not subject for deletion 68.33.93.136 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep I read this article, all of the rules in Guide_to_deletion, and also the pages for WP:NMUSIC and WP:COI, and I vote keep for the following reasons. 63.139.44.18 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the earlier contributors that this article meets the rules for WP:NMUSIC, because it shows multiple credible, independent sources. SmartSE questions the sources because some of them are university newsspapers, but even without the newspapers, the article also features the subject being interviewed on national television. This explicitly meets Criteria #12 of WP:NMUSIC. It seems there was also a performance of both live and recorded music in that television segment, which meets both #12 and #10.
 * considering the views of the other contributors, I also don't think this is a COI. User Seafox289 suggested a "probable" COI, but so far there is no proof that there is any real relationship between the author and the subject. An earlier contributor made a good point that it is pretty common for people that are "fans" of something to edit its wikipedia page, so i don't think this counts as a COI. The article is written objectively, and follows wikipedias guidelines of verifiability and objectivity, and after reading the wikipedia pages of several other notable musicians, I don't see this article's language as seeming any different or more partial than the others.

Keep I found this article through the "random article algorithm" and noticed that it had a deletion entry. At first I agreed with SmartSE because it seemed sources were mostly from college newspapers. I googled "Travis Karter" to see if i could find any other recent, credible sources, and I found an article published by popular music blog Trapstyle. I searched "Trapstyle" on wikipedia, and saw that this same source has also been used as a credible source in the article's of several other artists and musicians. I added the citation to the official page and then came here to comment, but now that i've read all the other comments from other users, I also agree that according to WP:NMUSIC the national TV interview that is documented in the article is enough to satisfy the #12criteria. However, now with the additional credible article, the subject also satisfies #1 as well. I am in agreemenet with other contributors that this article is a keep because it is objective, verifiable, and satisfies #1, #10, and #12 of WP:NMUSIC Claire Simmons46 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more input by established editors.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep: A Summary of arguments With this article now relisted, and the discussion expanded, I'll summarize the arguments against the deletion of this article, and for it being kept.
 * Initially, User SmartSE suggested this article fails WP:NMUSIC, however, that proposal has been undermined, as the article clearly meets both Criteria #10 and #12 of WP:NMUSIC due to the subject's significant coverage on national broadcast television.
 * SmartSE questioned the sources due to some being college newspapers, however, with the additional source found by user Claire Simmons46, the page also now entirely meets #1 as well, as the new source comes from "Trapstyle," a reputable music publication that has been previously recognized and accepted by Wikipedia in several other articles.
 * It is important to note as well that WP:NMUSIC does not unequivocally ban the use of university newspapers as sources. It specifically says "in most cases" – The sources in question come from Harvard University and Cornell University – two of the most reputable university publications in the entire country, which, resultantly may be assigned higher credibility than the average university publication
 * In response to User Seafox289 suggesting a potential WP:COI, once again I restate: I have no significant personal, or even acquaintance relationship with the subject. All the information I gathered was entirely from the sources, which I was careful to cite at each turn. There is no unsourced information in the Wiki, and it is entirely written objectively, academically, and in-keeping with Wikipedia's three cardinal criteria, and Biographies_of_living_persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkazimi (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. The main references I see that are about him are in college newspapers (or college-student blogs ); I'm unconvinced of their independence from the source.  I vehemently disagree that a TV interview with the participant while they were in middle school on Smile Jamaica meets WP:NMUSIC#12.  The remaining source, Trapstyle, is an "artist-operated music blog".  I'm confident that, per WP:SPIP concerns, the general notability guideline is not met. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Addressing power~enwiki WP:NMUSIC Criteria #12 specifies exactly that the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Could you please specify exactly how this substantial coverage on national television fails to meet Criteria #12? Furthermore, your mention of the subject's age seems to be entirely irrelevant, as nowhere in WP:NMUSIC does it indicate a statute of limitations of the sources provided. The source is an officially aired interview on national television, and fully meets Criteria #12 of WP:NMUSIC. In regard to your statements on the sources, as I've looked into it, all sources except potentially the source published by the Hopkins news-letter are entirely independent of the subject, but, even without the Hopkins news-letter, the subject has been covered by multiple independent sources. I was not the one who found the Trapstyle source, but after looking into it, I notice as indicated by Claire Simmons46 it has been referenced multiple times in other Wikipedia articles, clearly indicating its solidity as a source, so for it to be questioned here almost seems a tad subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkazimi (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time or energy to deal with your rules-lawyering. The closing admin can watch the clip and dismiss it as not relevant to notability without further argument needed on my part. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * power~enwiki, If you are unable to answer any of my questions, I understand, however there is a clear difference between “rules-lawyering” and pointing out that you are attempting to enforce regulations that simply do not exist, and arbitrarily interpreting the ones that do. I ask that you maintain respectful tone, and be specific if you are going to suggest a violation. (continued)


 * Every potential charge of violation brought against this article has been responded to without any subsequent rebuttal from the original posters who suggested the violation. I have created and contributed to several articles as an editor, and will continue to do so– I have no particular vested interest in this particular article, nor the subject himself, but what I do find a tad perturbing is the repeated attempts to exercise arbitrary requirements, seemingly fabricated at the discretion of the contributing user. (continued)


 * If Wikipedia identifies criteria and guidelines by which an article must adhere, and the article adheres to those guidelines, then the exercise of arbitrary rulings leveraging caveats that are written nowhere in those guidelines seems subjective at best. Specifically: WP:NMUSIC requires one criteria to be met at least. #12 grants notability in the event of significant, nationally broadcasted television coverage. Nowhere does it mention disqualification based on any of the objections power~enwiki has voiced, and to attempt to discredit the article based on fabricated requirements is entirely subjective and arbitrary. I further assert that this article satisfies #10 and #5: #1 as well. Furthermore, to solely "vehemently" suggest that sources are not independent, yet fail to indicate reasoning behind this charge, and to refuse to do so when asked, also seems arbitrary and subjective. (continued)


 * To the closing admin, I ask that you please analyze objectively, regardless of your final decision.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my final contribution as original author.

Scholarmaking (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Found additional national publication initially i was ambivalent to the overall debate, but i was able to find an additional, recent source from a national publication. I included it in the works cited of the article. I would vote to keep, as this article now sufficiently satisfies #1 of WP:NMUSIC


 * 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.