Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turk Beezy (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.  MBisanz  talk 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Turk Beezy (rapper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMG. No reliable, independent coverage. Sources are primary profiles or superficial press releases. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this might qualify for WP:G4, as this has been discusses at Articles for deletion/Turk beezy, and the article has been recreated multiple times at Turk Beezy (which is WP:SALTed) and Turk beezy. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - What is considered an artificial/superficial press release? Most websites are independent third party publication that also cover large name artists along with major New York based radio personalities. From Thisis50 to Dj Enuff website, ThatsEnuff.com along with The Source Magazine. These are all created by independent editors. Don't be bias because it's not a larger considered 'creditable' publication such as TMZ or CNN/Fox. Also on terms of the previous articles they had very little verifiable information and many less publications covering the topics in which they should have been deleted. Now however the article has been significantly improved and simple research will find easily verifiable information. — HipHopWikiPolice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Most of the sources used are about Trickin. All but two use the exact same promotional wording, which is only a single paragraph. The other two are even less substantial. Being covered by The Source would be useful, but this isn't coverage in The Source, this is just a PR blurb republished on their web domain. Many outlets repeating the same PR isn't the same as many sources, they're all the same source, and it's both very weak, and not at all independent of the artist.
 * The MTVArtists bio, the Facebook page, and the Vevo video are User submitted content, and are not reliable for establishing notability.
 * What is Digital Record Tracker? It doesn't look like one that's used by Wikipedia, and many of the artists on those charts are obscure. I don't see it at Record charts, so I don't think it's usable for notability. I'm also not sure it's reliable. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Multiple Independent sources, along with third parties not in anyway connected to the band. Also fairly popular artist in the the Central Florida Area with local radio airtime on local iheartmedia run 104.5 the beat. — Jamesthompson1978 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC).


 * See above for the sources. Local radio airtime is not enough to establish notability by itself, per WP:BAND. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well from what you just listed #6 under recordings from music notability states rotation under any major radio airwaves which makes it notable, and also your statement is contradictory because above you state that multiple sources have covered it, so the radio airwaves would not be a lone indicator of notabilit, but would be complimented by the blog publications. For more info on what digital radio fracker is simply go to digitalradiotracker.com and research under the about section. It follows a wide range of radio station air plays along with digital radio air plays in order to give a time gap of specific stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopWikiPolice (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you mean #11, but yes, I already did that, and I still don't think Digital Radio Tracker is reliable or significant. A company isn't reliable just because they say they are, because they all say they are. The chart doesn't say that this was put in rotation by a major network, either. If you want to show that it charted, use Billboard or some other well-known company. If you want to claim this was in national rotation, you need to be able to point to the network that put it in rotation. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Multiple reproductions of of PR are not independent. Claimed airplay is not rotation, digital radio tracker is not a good chart. Not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC) This was already addressed above as to the improvements and differences in the article. Do some research before making a proposal.
 * Speedy delete per CSD G4 This article appears to be a copycat of Turk Beezy, failing to address the concerns raised at the previous AFD discussion about this topic area. Hx7 13:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still going to stick with my delete vote, per all the opinions raised by other trusted editors. The sources that you added just doesn't cut it - they are not independent reliable sources but PR releases. Hx7 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per G4, salt and nuke from orbit It's a promotional piece for a non-notable rap artist. As stated above the sources are not independent of the subject, they are PR releases. Digital Radio Tracker is not consider a reliable chart as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete "Fairly popular" is subjective and certainly does not establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Badly-written promotional piece (redundant, I know) whose citations are either small niche sources or link directly to his music. sixty nine   • speak up •  16:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources lack significance and/or third part independence. All are self-promotional. Editors who are arguing for keep have failed so far to provide convincing, independent evidence that these sources have merit. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as everything the article lists says it all, nothing at all actually suggestive of both the needed substance and notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:53, 23 July 2016 (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.