Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinnyx


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Vinnyx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person is a music producer notable for one event, producing No Flockin. The biographical sources cited in the article,, all read like press releases or self-sourced postings. I was unable to find any significant biographical details in reliable sources. Moreover, music producers are out-of-scope of WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

oppose/keep as per WP:MUSICBIO WP:BASIC WP:ANYBIO

Thanks for the suggestions. I would like to politely refute the points regarding sourcing, notability, and the scope of music producer as per WP:MUSICBIO.

1. Sourcing - In terms of the music industry, the sources cited are reliable as per Wikipedia's own definition of secondary sources.

A) As per their website, musiconnection.com was "Founded in 1977 on the principle of bridging the gap between “the street and the elite,” Music Connection has grown from a popular print publication into a spectrum of products and services that address the wants and needs of musicians, the music tech community and industry support services." An independent music trade publication (which has its own wikipedia page) that has been around for 40+ years is a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines (just because its not well-known outside of the music business does not mean it's not a reliable source).

B) Genius [|Genius, formerly Rap Genius] is considered one of the most relevant music information platforms today. Yes, for the lyrics/song info side Genius is crowdsourced, but the source in question is written by their news editor. The video was shot and edited by Genius (presumably at their in-house studio) and has almost a million views. Hard to see how this can be considered a self-sourced posting. Genius is just as relevant of a reliable source as Rolling Stones, Complex, or other music publications.

2. Notability WP:BASIC states that, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" The above sourcing (and additional sourcing on the page) passes WP:BASIC. On the notable for one event page it states, "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." In this case, Vinnyx is notable for producing other songs along with No Flockin (as seen on the discography page, all information I found credited to him online).

3. Scope of "Music Producer" - Note Vinnyx is also listed as a songwriter (Rui Wen Pan).

Notability (music) [] should apply more than the basic WP:ANYBIO is this case. Please note that Vinnyx is both a [|record producer] and a songwriter [|songwriter]. Record producers, when they are also credited as songwriters (aka. composers), can be considered both instrumentalists and composers (the Genius source video states itself that Vinnyx make the beat for No Flockin - which is an instrumental). In this case, No Flockin has been RIAA certified platinum (Criteria for musicians and ensembles) and Vinnyx has songwriting credits for multiple music compositions (Criteria for composers and lyricists).

On the Nominated for deletion[] page, it states, "The general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for someone to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." The above explanation should show this page qualifies.

TorontoMusicGenius (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NBAND, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:GNG. Without getting into the weeds of whether a particular source is significant or reliable, I want to address the big picture. Wikipedians have long had a consensus that producers are ordinary and run of the mill, because their job - while important to the industry and them - does not actually entail creating anything by themselves (they collaborate with and direct musicians). They are not otherwise notable for doing anything at all but their jobs; using a mult box does not require a college degree or a great deal of talent. Actually notable producers tend to own their own studios, are members of an academy such as the Grammys, have long careers, help create innovative or avant garde work, bring together artists from different genres, have been interviewed by the media for their work, and win awards for their work. I don't see any of that here. SIGCOV creates a presumption that someone is notable, but many red links direct you to deleted articles about people who've had significant coverage in reliable sources. (I don't want to embarrass anybody, but if you insist, I have the receipts.) I also note that NMUSIC applies to specific issues that musicians and bands deal with; they are notable not for what they write on the bus, but rather for performing in public, even as small as a house concert. For that reason, studio musicians are rarely considered notable. In 2020, everybody knows that Wikipedia is a private charity; thus nobody has a right to have anything hosted by us. There's certainly no legal right; see recent caselaw. You certainly wouldn't demand that the Girl Scouts donate a share of their cookies to your charity, or demand an Episcopal church to host your denomination's rites, or a youth hostel to let you crash there without being a member. The same goes here. To save your article, you still have the burden to find details about a public figure's life (school, relationships, charitable work, etc.), and much more on his song-writing and Platinum certifications. I encourage sysops to give the proponent(s) a week's time to fix this article. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

oppose/keep Struck dupe vote Nightfury 11:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC) as per WP:MUSICBIO WP:BASIC WP:ANYBIO Could someone please provide a source that Wikipedia has "long had a consensus that producers are ordinary and run of the mill?" Because this exact prejudicial statement is what producers and songwriters across the Music Business have been fighting against in the past few years. For anyone who doesn't understand how influential and impactful music producers are, please read the above sources - you'll also see that the distinction between an "artist" and a "producer" is purely an arbitrary one. As the above sources show, most people don't realize how much of their favorite songs are done by the producers and songwriters. There is a movement in the industry right now to recognize and acknowledge producers and songwriters as much as the artists. Because a lot of the times, the artist just sings what the producers/songwriters has wrote and slaps their brand onto it. Why should so many upcoming artists who have not achieved anything significant have Wikipedia pages and upcoming producers are not given the same level of credibility when they have commercially released successful records? That seems like a double-standard and against Wikipedia's own policies. I would hope that people don't automatically become prejudicial and stereotypical of things that they don't fully understand, and rather spend some time learning about it before coming to conclusions. That to me is the ethos of Wikipedia.

--TorontoMusicGenius (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: - you cannot vote twice.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, just to clarify relist comment, from Articles for deletion - "The debate is not a vote:..." ie. editors recommend a course of action, we do not "vote". Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with an alternate merge if there is a suitable article: Per Nom and the in-depth and accurate rationale of user:Bearian. Comments: The opposing "keep" of the editor that likely offered a good faith double "!vote" actually offers (likely inadvertently) support for "deletion". The comments "Why should so many upcoming artists who have not achieved anything significant have Wikipedia pages and upcoming producers are not given the same level of credibility when they have commercially released successful records?". This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Because "other" articles are on Wikipedia is not relevant. There are many factors that might be the reasoning, like maybe those articles are better sourced, or maybe they just have not came across an editor that questions the notability enough to nominate them. Some key issues here are notability, sources, and the article itself. While a source can be acceptable for content it may not advance notability. An "industry specific source", that may be reliable, is often biased towards the subject tending to be promotional. If a source is not a review it is likely never going to show but one side so providing independent sources (Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?) provides evidence the article is non-promotional or advertisement. Without this there is a lack of a neutral point of view. This is not only policy but part of the Wikipedia "Five pillars". When an article is a pseudo biography it is usually because the subject is not suitable for a stand alone article. When the notability of a subject (If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.) is questioned a red flag would be Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest.. Surely it can be seen that many industry specific sources will have "financial or other personal considerations" towards the subject, that would diminish the value over a more independent source, and not be as reliable towards advancing notability, or not at all. A great example of substandard sources not advancing notability would be the source noted above "Genius". Crowdsourcing aside, or the potential reliability of the source, a COI is clearly evident (possibly except to a fan) with "The video was shot and edited by Genius (presumably at their in-house studio)...". When the subject of a source is directly involved with the subject of the article there are not only COI issues, independent sourcing issues, NPOV issues, but the source should absolutely be considered a self-published source (if acceptable at all), possible only for content about the subject that does not advance notability, regardless of how many "millions of view" are involved. In my opinion sources presented to prove notability when "they clearly do not" are nothing more than reference bombing, no matter if presented in good faith, but many times are also a Gish gallop argument (intended or not) and the end result is an article that fails more than one point of What Wikipedia is not. Otr500 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Shadow closer here, I like to intern my skill of interpreting discussion consensus, I interpret this discuss as Delete, and I leave for the admin to proceed with the action if so interpreted. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:32, 21 March 2020 (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.