Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Lean


 * 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. keep commentators doesn't provide any sources outside passing mentions on how he meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC, which is a valid policy based rationale most (a few were not policy based) of the delete commentators had. Willing to userfy per request. Secret account 19:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I somehow missed the in depth New York Times source while reading the discussion which made most of the delete discussion moot, really confusing AFD all around but apparently WP:GNG is met (if WP:MUSIC isn't) no consensus Secret account 00:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yung Lean

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No charting song or album. There is some coverage in reliable sources, but most of it is trivial, such as mentions in lists of artists, news about songs released etc. It has previously been speedy deleted twice under A7 for "No explanation of significance". 2Flows (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry- I'm really new to the Wikipedia thing. I tried best I could to make it fit within the guidelines. I feel it completes WP:NMUSIC because of "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition." for his nomination in P3 Guld. I feel like he could also potentially be suitable for "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." but I don't think there is any way that I can support that with citations. I also think the some of the Vice Noisey articles about him classify as non-trivial. There's not alot of discussion about his music, only really his cultural significance (like the article about bucket hats http://noisey.vice.com/en_se/blog/yung-lean-is-going-to-do-bucket-hats-like-mac-miller-did-the-snapback-interview-2014 ); but he's the sort of artist who nobody's really going to write non-trivially about anyway -- like Lil B or many of the other cloudrap artists like him.

I don't know if http://noisey.vice.com/blog/yung-lean-new-york-city-concert-webster-hall suffices for "7. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country."

Is any of that useful anyhow? Jackcrawf3 (Jackcrawf3) 9:48, 30 June 2014 (AEST)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is if, as you said, "nobody's really going to write non-trivially about" him, then he is likely not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 2Flows (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the GNG, e.g 78.19.84.172 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the links you provided have significant coverage on the subject. Two mixtape reviews, both part of lists of mixtapes; a song review, which barely mentions him; a 3-page article on a general topic, which only mentions him in the last 2 paragraphs. The one article which is actually about him (2), is a blog post by a guest blogger, as can be seen from the source, so it cannot be considered reliable. 2Flows (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. A mixtape review such as is clearly significant coverage, even if it were part of a "list". "A blog post by a guest blogger" does not rule something out as a RS  (see WP:UGC grafs 2 & 3) even if that was an accurate characterisation of  —the italicised last line, as is common, is an author bio. "Brandon Soderberg is a rap blogger and cultural critic whose words often appear in SPIN." See Spin. The piece that "barely mentions" him has 200+ words on him. Etc. 78.18.13.94 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * which criterion of NMUSIC is met? LibStar (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At a minimum guidelines 7-9-10-12.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * regarding #9, which major award has he won or placed? being nominated is not the same as placing. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

also #10, how does he meet "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" LibStar (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * also there is nothing in the article to suggest #12 is met either. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google search found further coverage. Satisfies general and subject-specific notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * please list the extra sources you found. LibStar (talk) 2 2:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure., , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for finding. I don't think cmj.com is a reliable source, its website says "CMJ Access is an integrated marketing agency specializing in providing its clients unparalleled access to the college and young adult demographic and emerging music world", so there appears to be some connection in what they feature and their "clients". one of your articles is a review by "C Monster" that is hardly reliable. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * CMJ is a reliable source. The fact that the parent company has a branch that carries out marketing doesn't change that. And the fact that someone writes under a pseudonym for Tiny Mix Tapes does not make it an unreliable source. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I touched upon this already in Articles for deletion/Throw That Boy Pussy, but I'm going to reiterate that Wikipedia's established notability guidelines for musical artists have become somewhat out of date as the music industry itself is transforming. I definitely think a reconsideration of the music notability guidelines is long overdue as we approach an era in entertainment where an artist's popularity can no longer be measured by the traditional means of billboard chart positions. As for Yung Lean himself, I think the references provided by other users on this page clearly establish notability. felt  _   friend  02:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * an established notability guideline which has numerous subcriteria being "out of date" is not a claim for keeping. There are other more generic guidelines like WP:GNG and BIO which also apply. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the basis of my rationale for keeping, just a statement I wanted to put out since WP:NMUSIC gets thrown around a lot in these kind of AfDs and I feel it to be extremely out of date. As for Yung Lean himself, I would agree that, as per the sources provided by LibStar and others, he indeed passes the notability criteria of GNG and BIO, but not NMUSIC. felt  _   friend  15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not provided any sources. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Vanity page for a non-notable milquetoast suburban rapper wannabe. On a more subjective note, his latest track sounds like somebody cupped a warm fart and wafted it at a theremin. - incog (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An AfD result is not based on your personal opinion about a certain person (which are frankly quite rude), but on guidelines. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NMUSIC, I don't see him meeting any criterion, he was nominated for an award but did not place which is what the criterion requires. a number of sources provided in the article are not reliable eg blogs. also seems to another youtube short lived star, and that's not a claim for a WP article. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Noisey isn't unreliable. He also had an article and interview in i-D Magazine, which again is not an unreliable source. Both of these publications are owned by VICE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vykex (talk • contribs) 09:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails musician notability criteria. Existing references are either passing mentions or non-reliable. No other significant coverage found in reliable independent sources.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable, etc... Femmina (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Shitty virally marketed memerap. User:Antz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.72.32 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been substantially improved and sourced since the above !votes were added. --Michig (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 10:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep : This topic is significantly notable. Wikipedia contains article on numerous topics far less important and notable than this one.--Ubed junejo (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly passing both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, however, is. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubed did not cite these guidelines. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC) — 114.164.127.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. 114.164.127.244 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The artists clearly meets the general notability guide and WP:NMUSIC through independent coverage in reliable sources, as has been demonstrated above. — sparklism hey! 12:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because is a savior of culture. Femmina (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * you haven't addressed how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per LibStar, Philg88, and 2Flows. --Neøn (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The New York Times just came out with an article about him: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/arts/music/yung-lean-in-new-york-a-rapper-evolves.html Talu42 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. XXL have also published a review of his NYC show (http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2014/07/yung-lean-surprises-nyc-live-review/]), but let's face it, it has been obvious for a long time that notability isn't a problem here. Take away the WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes and the 'no coverage' argument that has been disproven and there wasn't even a need to relist it (a decision that should have been taken by an uninvolved editor in any case). --Michig (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per extensive coverage by the media as seen on the article. I doesn't seem to fail WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I will add sources for these claims at a later date (right now I don't have time)... Yung Lean is actually signed to Sony. Surely a record deal must carry some sort of weight? He is also sponsored by major commercial companies such as Nike and Arizona Beverages USA. Vykex (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable artist. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is he non notable? Most of the delete !votes here states no guideline opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1; I agree with Michig's assessment of the sources. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Libstar and Philg88 --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2014 (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.