Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Clout

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 merge‎ to FBG Duck. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Clout

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RELIABILITY. Also affiliated with article recreated third time following deletion by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination rests on flawed reasoning and misapplied policies. Big Clout is a released studio album, distributed by Columbia Records, a major label already a solid claim to notability per WP:NALBUM Criterion 1.

Coverage includes a contemporaneous album review from HotNewHipHop, a site consistently accepted in similar music AfDs. In addition, DailyLoud and RateYourMusic supporting reception and while not all these sites are perfect individually, collectively they contribute to WP:GNG by showing ongoing attention and critique of the album.

The deletion rationale claims "reliability" and "affiliation with a previously deleted article," but this doesn't hold. FBG Duck's article was not deleted, but kept after discussion, which invalidates arguments based solely on association. Even if it had been deleted, notability is not inherited but it's also not denied based on supposed guilt-by-association. That logic is unsound.

Finally, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not the place for challenging article quality or formatting. If reliability or sourcing were truly the issue, the proper action would be tagging or improving, not deletion. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning merge to the artist. Someone is trying to flesh out his presence on Wikipedia with the navigation box, the article with the multiple sub-headers, a spun-out discography page and page about his death, etc. But the coverage is simply not that widespread. Here is another review from rapreviews, as well as further news about releases [1][2] but they are not significant. This could be a weak keep as well, but the page about the artist mostly has very short sections and should be expanded before spinouts. Geschichte (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to FBG Duck per Geschichte.

Momentoftrue said

Big Clout is a released studio album, distributed by Columbia Records, a major label already a solid claim to notability per WP:NALBUM Criterion 1.

but I don't see how any of this fulfills Criterion 1 which states:

The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. (I dont think the subpoints are relevant here)

Now the source from rapreviews that Geschichte found is a really good source for this criterion but I am not seeing the others as being non-trivial. The HotNewHipHop page is hardly a review, the article title calling it "heat" is the closest it gets to a review instead of a release announcement. Overall I am not seeing multiple and non-trivial reviews of this EP-like album that are needed to satisfy album notability. I further agree with Geschichte that the coverage is not widespread enough for all the various sub pages about this artist, I am thinking 2 or max 3 depending on how much trimming ends up being done. Moritoriko (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to add one more comment that yes the original rationale didn't make much sense (talking about music bio instead of album, etc.) but once we judge the article on what it should be measured against it still fails to measure up. Moritoriko (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with FBG Duck. As Geschichte and Moritoriko have already mentioned, what little coverage exists currently is mostly trivial mentions that do not meet WP:NALBUM. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.