Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Duece


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Young Duece

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable musicians. speedys removed multiple times by a storm of SPA's, so it's time to use a bigger hammer Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to this non-stop battle with these "editors" and ending up here, I've actually come across the newspaper article I've been referring to for years. Finally figuring out how to actually use Wikipedia. If the article shows up in Wikipedia's own search tool how is it not credible or notable? Doesn't make sense. Nonetheless, I'll be standing by until the issue is resolved and will return regardless of the decision, eventually. Kevinbarlow (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, refs do not establish notability, and I include the copyvio article scan. Annoying sock drawer to boot. Hairhorn (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Kevinbarlow (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, References and extra information establish required notability. Initially, Hairhorn suggested "needs refs for notability, not obviously notable". What isn't obiviously notable? Informative? It's all proof. The article scan can be removed but that too is linked an online URL proving the same matter. Along with the award nominations and production credits. I'll admit, in the beginning the information and structure didn't meet the requirements in order to remain valid. But now everything is clearly in line. The editors wishing to have it removed are more concerned with winning the battle rather than acknowledging fact. Along with the "Traphik" page, whom which this page is proven to be connected to upon reference checking. If some info must be removed by technicality, then so be it. But notability is proven for most information given.
 * Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. The bottom line is this: are there reliable sources which discuss the subject - not more famous acts with whom they've been associated - in "significant detail?"  No.  There aren't.  Certainly a handful of bloggers have, but of them reliable sources do not make.   Ravenswing  20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Call me biased for being a fan, but...

Information confirming the following criteria has been gathered and displayed in order to fulfill Wiki rules:

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:"

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

"For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:" 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.

"For composers and performers outside mass media traditions:" 5. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.


 * "Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine"**

All taken from WP:MUSIC

This article isn't all about their connection with others, clearly. I say Keep, and if the information doesn't continue to grow then delete at a later time. After all, all content on Wikipedia is user generated. Just because a few "credible editors" on here don't know much about the group doesn't mean that plenty of others around the world don't. Thekiddidit (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Thekiddidit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply: Let's review: Criterion #1: FAIL. No reliable source discusses the subject in "significant detail."  Bloggers do not generally count. Criterion #5: FAIL.  Their albums are self-released or released through a non-notable indie label. Criterion #7: FAIL.  No reliable sources have been proffered certifying this. Criterion #9: FAIL.  They have won no competitions normally considered "major."  A Google News search for the "Take Back the Music" competition which is claimed here to be major has ZERO hits . Criterion #10: FAIL.  This has never happened. Composer criterion #1: FAIL.  See above. Composer criterion #2: FAIL.  The article doesn't even assert that they did. Composer criterion #5: FAIL.  No reliable sources have been proffered to back this up.   Ravenswing  11:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For Criterion #1, Ourstage.com is or should be acknowledged as a notable source if they're listed on Wikipedia themselves. Which is where they have a article written in "significant detail" about them. For Criterion #5, although released under indie label, Allmusic.com is said to be to be a credible source according to Wikipedia's own standards, where they're listed as the authors and composers. As composers of lyrics and music, Criteria #1 - though Traphik is considered notable because of his Billboard article, if his only album to date "Rush Hour" (according to Allmusic.com) was entirely produced by them as stated on CDbaby, and released under the same independent label, would this still not be considered notable? After all, it is Billboard's "Uncharted" chart.
 * Comment' Alright, not gonna debate on whether the sources are notable because I've read and heard about how that ends up at the end of the day. But I will say that I find it funny that Essence Magazine isn't considered notable upon itself. As mentioned, the (first) competition took place in 2006. Therefore, if when searching Google news, you change time period to anywhere between 2006-2008 (when the competitions were held) hundreds of credible sources concerning the competition will show up. -Criterion #9-

Honestly, I'm just pushing the envelope. There are so many twist and turns when it comes to verifying fact on here. It's just funny that one person's judgment can overpower the next when this whole site is supposedly cooperative. Then once contested, it comes down to "notability". Might as well be ran by robots so that debates won't need to take place. You say it's not about a majority vote but that's how it seems. Thekiddidit (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources are not "notable", they are reliable (or not), notability is a term applied to the topic of entries. It's irrelevant to reliablility whether a source is written up in wiki or not. (For example, this is not a reliable source.) As for Allmusic, much of their content is wildly inaccurate, I don't consider them reliable, although others may. Hairhorn (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This group/band does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia - neither generally nor those at WP:MUSIC.  There is no independent coverage of the group, none of its music has received any significant award or been on any national charts, the musicians themeselves are not notable, they have not won any major music competition, etc, etc. They appear to be self-promoting and (sorry) just not notable.   In short, what we would need to see is someone independent of the group talking about them in a credible publication.  Good luck to the boys, but they don't make the notability grade yet.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - agreed with the other commenters here that there doesn't seem to be enough here to pass WP:BAND just yet. The third-party coverage, such as it is, isn't from reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not yet ready, inadequate coverage in reliable sources, notability not established.  Come back in five years if notability has been gained. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:44, 18 March 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.