Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinylz (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. There are some terrible WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes here (seriously people, if you're not going to justify your comment vis a vis policy, then don't bother making one) but there are also enough grounded in policy to suggest that the subject does have enough third-party referencing to meet GNG. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Vinylz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO; no proof of reliable sources within coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – I do believe that there is a little proof of references, but although, it is a very good, clean page that does need more improvement. There is nothing wrong. DBrown SPS (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Agreeing with above. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as sources such as billboard confirm his releases have charted which means a pass of WP:NMUSIC which does apply to record producers if read carefully in the later paragraph titled Others which refers to notable melodies, which charting releases surely are Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a biography, it lack sufficient sources. Looks like (often unsourced or poorly sourced) coat rack. The Banner talk 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "For someone who’s practically unknown, Anderson Hernandez, the 25-year-old producer who goes by Vinylz, is everywhere. His résumé is spotless, with major hits built on his cavernous hybrid of ’90s boom-bap and contemporary R&B haze for just about every important rap star: Kanye West, Drake, Jay Z, Lil Wayne, J. Cole, and Nicki Minaj. We’re sitting on the second floor of Pergola, an oasis-like Manhattan hookah bar. Pulling on a milky-smooth flavor of hookah, the good-natured Hernandez explains how his records tend to materialize. Occasionally, he’ll be summoned at the last minute. Just days before Drake released his last mixtape, the rapper called him late at night, begging for beats to add to the project. “He was like, ‘Get out the club. Go home and send me something,’” Hernandez recalls, soft-spoken but direct, in a hoodie and chains. “I rushed out the club. But I couldn’t really make anything because I was drunk.” What wound up on the final version of the tape were the beats for “Know Yourself” and “You & The 6.” On the handwritten thank-you note that accompanied the release, Vinylz is listed before Noah “40” Shebib. ... These days, Hernandez is stationed in Hackensack, New Jersey, where he lives with DJ SpinKing and a club owner named Star. He grew up in uptown Manhattan, where he began rapping at age 14 (he says he was “terrible”), until a friend put him on to Fruity Loops, the same low-budget production software he still uses today. As a teenager, his music caught the ear of Swizz Beatz’ father, who introduced Hernandez to his son. He began working with the rapper Cassidy, who wanted to freestyle over Drake’s breakout “Best I Ever Had.” On a whim, Hernandez decided to try his luck reaching out to the song’s producer, Boi-1da, on Myspace, and got a response. Before long, he was brought into Boi-1da’s world, and eventually became a close collaborator of Drake and his OVO cohort."  The article notes: "Anderson “Vinylz” Hernandez wanted to be rapper up until the age of 15. Realizing his skills weren't quite up to par, he decided to try his hand behind the boards. A close friend who was producing using the Fruity Loops production software showed him the ins and outs of the program. From there, Vinylz became cooking up his own beats and sharing them with other producers on MySpace. One of the producers he was in contact with was Toronto-based and OVO crew member Boi-1da. After a few digital correspondences, the two decided to work together. Boi-1da would invite Vinylz to his crib in Canada for days at a time. Conversely, Vinylz would invite 1da down to Washington Heights. Soon after, the two decided to meet in L.A. to make magic. Vinylz has co-production credit on a bunch of hits, including Drake's '5 AM in Toronto,' Jay Z and Rick Ross' 'F***WithMeYouKnowIGotIt,” and DJ Khaled's 'No New Friends,' to name a few. These days, he's been in the studio with the whole Young Money camp. He produced Nicki Minaj's 'Chiraq' and Lil Wayne and Drake's 'Believe Me.' He's currently building his own studio in New Jersey, and has recently signed a publishing deal with Sony ATV through Boi-1da. We spoke to Vinylz earlier this week about producing for Wayne and Drake, what Nicki is like in the studio, the 'Black Skinhead' remix, and what he's got coming next."</li> <li> The article notes: "Anderson Hernandez grew up in Washington Heights, an area in New York City he says no one has ever come from before. After putting in a short time as an emcee, Hernandez fell in live with producing and never looked back. Against the wishes of his parents, he eventually dropped out of school to pursue music full time, and later earned their approval when they started hearing the songs he produced for Drake all over the radio. Hernandez adopted the name Vinylz as a tribute to his father's record collection, where he found inspiration for his sample-based beats. As he progressed as a beatmaker, he dropped the sampling technique, but kept the aesthetic, always making an effort to keep the 'feel' of the sample alive even when doing original productions -- and in some ways continuing in the tradition of New York rap, while always attempting to set himself apart from current trends."</li> <li> The article notes: "Sometimes it only takes one year for a person’s life to change completely. That is definitely the case for 23-year-old producer Anderson “Vinylz” Hernandez. The Washington Heights, New York native has been making tracks since the age of 15, and around this time just 365 days ago he was still a mostly unknown beatmaker. Then Hip Hop artists, blogs, and fans began to take notice of Vinylz’s production skills when songs by rappers like Roscoe Dash (“Like Diz” featuring 2 Chainz) and Joe Budden (“NBA” featuring Wiz Khalifa and French Montana) starting making the rounds on the net and radio. Fast forward just a few months later and now Vinlyz’s name is attached to some of the biggest Hip Hop songs of 2013. Armed with his FL Studios software and electronic keyboard Vinylz teamed with Matthew “Boi-1da” Samuels to create Drake’s “5AM In Toronto,” DJ Khaled’s “No New Friends,” and Jay Z’s “F*ckwithmeyouknowigotit.”"</li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "Producers usually have no idea when an artist will debut the final version of music they've worked on together, but on Tuesday, you heard Vinylz’s beats on big tracks from both J.Cole and Nicki Minaj. The 25-year-old New York native produced “Fire Squad” and “A Tale of 2 Citiez” on J.Cole’s upcoming 2014 Forest Hills Drive album, and Nicki’s “All Things Go” from The Pinkprint. Cole fans know that he takes pride in producing his own tracks – Born Sinner was almost entirely self-produced – but this time around he made an exception to work closely with Vinylz (who previously co-produced Drake’s “5AM in Toronto” and “0 to 100”). The two were introduced after the North Carolina rapper heard his work during a session with Jeremih."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vinylz to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Delete as the Keep votes themselves are simply stating at what they believe is enough to keep it but they are not stating or otherwise showing how, where and why this article can actually be kept and improved; the listed information and sources certainly are not close to showing we can improve anything even in the slightest; certainly also nothing establishing his own independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister   talk  00:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. as promotional and of borderline notability at best. The contents of the article shows the promotionalism --it primarily consists of what he says about himself. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia.   DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing wrong with this article. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is mostly neutrally written. Any promotional wording is so minor that it can be taken care of through normal editing, not completely deleting the article. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment and analysis of the claimed sources. The first one starts with "For someone who’s practically unknown, Anderson Hernandez, the 25-year-old producer who goes by Vinylz, is everywhere. His résumé is spotless", what type of honest news source would say this, because (1) it honestly states "not known" is "not yet notable", especially if they have to then mention his "résumé", that by itself is PR uses and PR uses only. That same article goes to talk about his own life from his own POV; the next one then goes to talk about his current activities, something else that, granted, he would supply and source himself, since there's no one else that would know better about his own activities than himself. The next article goes to also talk about his past and early activities, going to say "Hernandez fell in live with producing and never looked back", something that is imaginably not only something self-supplied, but self-imaged also. The last link here goes to sound like a radio interview, stating "Cole fans know that he takes pride in producing his own tracks – Born Sinner was almost entirely self-produced – but this time around he made an exception to work closely with Vinylz", something that, although common in news because of apparent "public interest", is still something someone wanting to glamorous someone's work, would say. The Fader article itself goes to essentially consume the entire thing by having the man speak himself, two paragraphs of it. As always, if the best the news article can submit is either the interview or otherwise self-supplied information, including about the subject thinks of himself or his activities, that's not independent or independently authored news. As I mentioned with my first common earlier, the first Keep votes themselves go to actually state and acknowledge the article has concerns, but are (1) not stating anything else about it specifically or somehow actually considering it; the next Keep vote goes to actually then state "There is nothing wrong with this article", which is entirely what this AfD has been about, therefore there was presumably not any consideration or acknowledge of concerns. Although the 1st AfD was actually different, the basis was still in fact (somewhat surprisingly considering AfD was a different environment at the time) the same concerns that are listed here, which was even noted of self-advertising, something that is also exhibited here. The claims of "the PR-like state" can be improved, not deleted, is not meeting anywhere the exact concerns stated here that the entire article is itself PR, how can something like that be improved? (Especially if the entire history and purposes of this article has apparently been for PR) SwisterTwister   talk  02:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The feature on him from The Fader was published on April 23, 2015, you're basically saying that Vinylz is currently not notable and never will be because one source (The Fader) says that he's "practically unknown", you're also saying that, even through that feature mentions that same statement, assumes that he shouldn't be notable, yet he still had a feature with The Fader and other reliable sources. Please don't make your claim based on ONE SOURCE, there are other sources. The editor who wrote that feature are implying that he isn't known by the fact he doesn't have a lot of recognition in today's "pop culture", compared to other record producers like Metro Boomin, Mike Will Made It and DJ Mustard, but the has extensively worked on a bunch of songs for a bunch of notable artists. Do you see the picture now? Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Sigh. I was going to close this, but instead I'm going to indulge in a little rant. The purpose of these AfDs is to determine if an article meets our inclusion requirements, which typically comes down to assessing sources and whether they establish notability. Cunard listed a bunch of sources. What would really be useful to somebody trying to close this debate would be if people would review those sources and comment on whether they're good or not. One person did that, but I'd really like to see additional discussion about those sources. I know it's unusual to relist for a third time, but reading over the material that's here, I don't see much in the existing discussion which gives me any good guidance on how to close this. I've got a few options available to me, none of them very attractive. Relisting seems like the least unattractive so that's what I'm doing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging, , , , , and . Please comment about whether the sources I provided demonstrate that Vinylz passes Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to keep the article, since you took the time to list the sources which shows Vinylz as notable, and I'm sure the ones who want the article deleted hasn't done their research, just merely claiming the article as "promotional". In addition, the editors on the streaming service Apple Music have created a featured playlist of him displaying his work titled "Behind the Boards: Vinylz", link to it here (needs iTunes or iOS device to access), which helps with notability. In worst case scenario, I am willing to rewrite the entire article if I have to so it can stay on Wikipedia. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, since my comment on 31 August you not edited the article, so my comments still stand. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I said that I will rewrite the article, for the worst case scenario. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the other way round: rewrite the article and perhaps that makes me change my vote. We need action, not promises. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment the sources provide by Cunard are significant coverage in reliable sources such as Fader and MTV which are established longstanding rs, Swister Twister is being far too demanding to expect magazine and web articles to be written in the neutral tone of an encyclopedia. Also, regarding personal information about the subject or any subject the reality is that for the press and magazines the information originates from primary sources- what is important is that the information is double- checked and sources such as Fader have a reputation for fact checking so that concern is misplaced. Haven't examined all the sources yet but there seems to be more than enough for WP:GNG to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "SwisterTwister is being far too demanding to expect magazine and web articles to be written in the neutral tone of an encyclopedia" - As mentioned, if we at all compromise and start accepting any questionable information (we cannot alone expect and confide with news media to not themselves accept PR, for the sake of either interested clients or PR), but it shows how damaging it can be to Wikipedia if we still accept such questionable contents; suggesting we somehow actually accept "non-NPOV tone and information" completely damns Wikipedia and what it is. SwisterTwister   talk  20:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing with Atlantic306's views on you, and for your claims, it doesn't damage anything at all, and theres nothing to question about, your simply exaggerating how the editor that wrote his feature on The Fader described Vinylz solely at the beginning, and thats one source implying that small statement, no other featured articles on him describes him like that, I suggest that you should just accept the article and thats it. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is hard to find a source, but I do know this one: . Maybe, it is recently, but it may help. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to find a source, Cunard already listed a whole bunch of them. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The primary problem is promotionalism, and from promotionalism throughout the article, it doesn't really mater much about the sources. (But it is also true that all Cunard's sources are basically what the subject is saying about himself; not surprisingly, that tends to go along with a promotional  article here.) DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the subject. Sources offered above, while numerous, are unconvincing they relay closely on the subject's commentary, and I would not consider them sufficient RS to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment if promotionalism is the major concern the article can be copyedited to address that as he is clearly notable by coverage in established reliable sources such as Fader, MTV and genre- specific rs. As he is the subject of rs coverage he qualifies for a wikipedia article as he also passes WP:MUSIC for producing hit compositions. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Upon consideration, the subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources, such as some presented above. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, some of which has already occurred after the article was nominated for deletion (diff, diff), rather than deleting it in entirety. North America1000 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry but every single source involves the subject talking about themself which essentially makes the sources primary/not independent. This is in addition to the fact that some of the sources like AllHipHop and HotNewHipHop are never supposed to be used per WP:SPIP. Our essential criteria is that "secondary sources independent of the subject" are required so that we can write an NPOV article. The quality of the sources clearly doesn't allow that to happen. There is no way I can independently verify the achievements either. Add to that the promotional part and this is a very clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have a small rant here,


 * To What you're referring to is called an "interview", you know, where you talk about your life and your work, and obviously I'm being sarcastic. Sorry about this, but I need to call you out, but "There is no way I can independently verify the achievements either" is complete bullshit, its so god damn easy to verify his achievements, have you checked BMI, RIAA, ASCAP, Liner notes, other reliable sources, nope. I'll give you a start, Forbes mentions one of Vinylz's work here. I know it isn't much, but that definitely shows that it can be verified, just as shown with the Forbes article, I'm pretty sure that a Forbes article is reliable. Sites like HotNewHipHop and AllHipHop are not paid publicity or sponsored, they are simply interviewing the guy about him and what he does, which is called an "interview", I'm being sarcastic again.


 * To all of the people that oppose the article being deleted, you people are insane on sources, speculating "Oh, it could be promotional", or "Oh, it could be sponsored", and a ton or more excuses, yet none of you take the time to do research about the guy himself, and again just assuming that it's bad. You guys need to calm down on the sources, and I suggest to just accept the article.


 * It should also be noted that nominator of this AfD, 206.125.47.10, appears to abuse the AfD flagging system through some attempts they did to mark (and remove one) article(s) they don't like, due to the discriminating things they said in their edit summaries of some of the articles they have marked for deletion, as shown here and here, as well as putting a false blocked statement on DBrown SPS's talk page here, even through DBrown SPS has never been blocked, as shown here, maybe an administrator could do some action against this editor? Maybe you could look into it please, thanks. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to understand what are reliable secondary sources. Let's quote you where you said: "I'm pretty sure that a Forbes article is reliable." Now lets look at the link. http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/09/16/drake-leads-the-bet-hip-hop-award-nominations/#57381c76ee72. Notice the URL? This has been previously discussed at RSN and this Poynter article pretty well explains their model: There is no fact checking.
 * Now coming back to interviews, yes they are primary sources and we require at the very least, one good secondary source specifically for WP:WHYN. That's missing here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Cunards sources are reliable sources, and the bylined articles under editorial review are focused about the subject and represent significant coverage. I reject any and all arguments claiming that secondary sources have to be neutral, or otherwise follow Wikipedia policies as if they were Wikipedia.  We cite reliable secondary sources because they have their OWN policies.  Also, interviews are valid secondary sources, as long as they are not SELF-PUBLISHED.  Because the interview was conducted by a secondary party, subject to secondary party editorial review, edited and selectively published by a secondary source.... it is a valid establishment of notability. Fieari (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm going to list my analysis of the "reject any and all arguments claiming that secondary sources have to be neutral" comment above, in that it is not anywhere close to what Wikipedia actually is, if we allowed, for example, republished PR simply because it was republished by a major news source, that would be a quite thin excuse of a source. There has been established consensus above that the sources are themselves PR because it's all simply interviewed information (simply restating them as 'significant' means nothing if they have been listed as unconvincing as it is), nothing else; the claim that interviews are acceptable if not self-republished is not exact, because interviews anywhere, say, a local news article about a starting businessperson or company, that is going to be self-supplied in the sense of being primary information and sourcing (news media is not going to have "review" of what the subject says himself if the contents are in fact a majority of information supplied by him). If we actually say "but it's enough", that's not acknowledging or considering the concerns here. SwisterTwister   talk  07:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sourcing by Cunard isn't the best, but repeated coverage in sites with editorial control would indicate that they meet WP:BASIC, even if just barely. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:47, 10 October 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.