Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/DJ Sharaz

Contesting in particular #2 which is verifiable through mainstream news sources. Not sure if the challenging party is trying to deny the subject was involved in this Billboard charted release or something else. No doubt the subject was involved here, and that should satisfy the basic requirement as noted. September 14, 2002. http://www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2002/dance-club-play-songs

Also, subject has released two albums on StreetBeat / Pandisc and has done production work for Afrika Bambaataa whom most people would consider notable (this is also verifiable). The subject has also done work for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannypack as well. His music has been released on Tommy Boy records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Boy_Entertainment ...look them up. All of this is easily found by conducting simple Google searches which certain opposing parties refuses to do.

It's obvious this deletion issue is a personal, and the two people attempting to blank the page are likely the same individual using different IPs. Just my $.02. Far more artists here have had less of an impact on this style of music but have undisturbed Wiki pages. At this point it seems the flags on the subject's page are meant to be purposely disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Point 2 is not verifiable through mainstream news sources. The article cites an unidentified news clipping hosted on his website which is not a reliable source. Radiodef (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The labels you've listed aren't any of the more important indie labels. For the record, I have Googled this. Searching for reliable sources is part of the AFD process. Radiodef (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You've really done nothing except present weak arguments. What you are saying, essentially, is a label that hosted House of Pain, Naughty By Nature, Everlast and Queen Latifah (and many many others) isn't an "important" indie label. This is probably THE seminal label in early hip hop and was a subsidiary of Warner Brothers for well over a decade. I'll forgive you if you're young and have zero idea where some of this music comes from. Wikipedia doesn't really have a definitive list of indie labels anyway, so this is merely your opinion. They've released a string of gold and platinum records, so let's just say you and I disagree on what constitutes "important".


 * The article you are disputing clearly shows it came from Florida's Bradenton Herald. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bradenton_Herald This newspaper's online archives do not go back that far. Are you saying because it's hosted on the artist's website that it's fake or never appeared? I don't see anything wrong with this if the article is actually real. The term "mainstream" with regard to news sources is nebulous - The Bradenton Herald is a McClatchey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company paper and was owned by Knight Ridder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Ridder in 2002. Let me know if it needs to be hosted elsewhere so it can become suddenly magically legitimate to you; I'll figure something out for you.


 * Nice revisionist attempt at changing Florida breaks and Florida rave history, though, I'll give you that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The article does not clearly show where it originates from. Ideally, there should be coverage that is not a scan hosted on a personal website. This quote gives a quick overview of the issue at hand:


 * "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it."


 * In general, a subject is notable when it's been picked up and covered in a variety of non-trivial works. This is not the case here. Radiodef (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * With the label thing: this is problematic. There exist all kinds of compilations and types of releases that do not constitute "having an album released by the label". Doing a remix for Tommy Boy (which is the association the article states) is not the same thing as, for example, Queen Latifah who has had entire records released under the label. The label associations claimed on the article are also uncited. Radiodef (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read and reread the requirements for articles - unless it's self serving or suspicious/fake there shouldn't be a problem with its content. So which is it? The article does clearly show its origin - and date of publication. Where it is hosted doesn't change its content or the truthfulness thereof.


 * Co-production on a Billboard charted track should be enough. If it was a work for hire and the work itself was the reason it was charted, then that should count. Unless you have proof otherwise that the artist's efforts had something less to do with such. This release wasn't a compilation, it was a retail single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The scan just says "The Herald". I would personally find it more useful if the source of the scan was more clearly indicated. As far as reliability of the source goes, this is a gray area to me. The source is third-party but the scan is hosted on the article subject's personal website. In the case of bios, it's somewhat permitted for the article subject to be a source on themselves except when the claims are "extraordinary". This would hint that it may be an acceptable source either way you look at it except that it is a citation for the hit. The hit is objectively the reason the article would meet criteria to be kept on WP.

I find to be a WP:COI taboo for the article subject to be hosting citations for their own article I'm not a bios guy. If somebody more familiar with bios sees this they might be able to say how this does or doesn't fall under WP:SELFSOURCE. I would personally like to see additional sources to corroborate the claim because of what I said about non-trivial coverage. Radiodef (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look at the scan again, especially perpendicular on the left side - it clearly states "Bradenton Herald" and the date of publication. I still see nothing on here stating an article cannot be hosted by the subject's website. It appears to have been written by a neutral third party more than a decade ago who would have had absolutely no idea it would become part of a contentious argument on Wikipedia. I am not a Wikipedia expert but I would think you could call the newspaper yourself and verify the article's authenticity. Going by what is written here, the subject did have a not insignificant contribution to the track's success. Isn't that what researchers do anyway - verify? Or are we such a society now that if it cannot be found online, it doesn't exist (or never existed, or is of questionable authenticity)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the left side just says "The Herald". In full, it says "WEEKEND / THE HERALD &middot; SECTION E &middot; FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2002". Radiodef (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct Radiodef, my mistake. I'd suggest conducting a search in the Bradenton Herald archives as it does bring up a link to the article (paywalled). You can probably call the publication to verify. I'm satisfied with the veracity of the source obviously, but it might help you to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Paywall links are allowed. See WP:PAYWALL. Radiodef (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't agree maybe you should ask for deletion of the reference to the IDMA's on that page. "IDMA" **is** a major music award with regard to EDM. it's mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_dance_music#Awards 67.190.202.71 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Throwing my hat into the discussion with a NO on deletion. The EDM wiki page itself notes the IDMA as a significant award...Radiodef has some edit history there and I agree with the above maybe it should be deleted if its so minor. You can't let it stand there and then pretend you don't know what it is when it comes to your argument against the DJ Sharaz page. EDM is its own animal and primarily an underground style of music. There are no Grammys or gold records in EDM, these artists sell 12" vinyl records to fans as well as CDs so the IDMAs are top of the food chain and about as close as an independent EDM artist is going to get to a Grammy or an AMW. I have other concerns about the nature of this deletion but I will leave that for now. No sense in repeating what has been already said by defenders of the entry as I agree wholeheartedly. Consider this a polite no. Sotoma665 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Radiodef's edit comment over on the EDM page "I don't see what this has to do with the article" and subsequent deletion of the artist's photograph is telling. Appears that occurred before he came over to this page to try and nuke it. Not to mention that photo of Sharaz has been there for nearly seven years with no objection whatsoever, and it was only when I tagged it as being Sharaz that the long knives came out to try and get the guy's page deleted, diminish his accomplishments, say he never did anything notable, etc which is a total and complete lie. As I stated before I believe this is personal vendetta and I am going to spend whatever time and effort necessary to have RadioDef's editing privileges revoked or - at minimum - suspended. I don't believe he's flagging this page under the premise of being unbalanced or academic - I'm just not convinced. As an aside, why is DJ Baby Anne's bio entry still up when she's accomplished far less mainstream success in this genre? There are practically no reliable references over there. Why is that entry not being challenged? At least be consistent. I would suggest reinstating the Sharaz photo over at the EDM page as well, especially if this article stays intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree with the counter arguments presented above against deletion. 67.190.202.71 (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Boy entertainment was a part of Warner music at the time his remix was charted. I would not consider that a small Indie.by any description, rather a large one probably one of the largest at the time. That's as far as the reference of the number one charted hit a simple search over at the Bradington Herald reveals that the article is indeed legitimate as it exists in their archives. So I think we can put this matter to bed as being verified. The person doing the objecting on this page has erased the artists association with platinum selling artist Africa Bambaataa. I don't know if this is intentional but it is definitely verified and should be reinstated. The link to the article is also gone. I don't know much about the IDMA awards but it does exist here on Wikipedia as a notable award for dance music. In light of this it seems this artist meets three of the notability criteria required for inclusion on W.P. I vote that the matter be speedily closed and the article kept with some of the unnecessary deletions reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.18.224 (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)