Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron solomon

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 keep I'm also going to rename this, as suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iron solomon

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

Rapper whose article makes no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability sufficient to pass WP:NMUSIC — it just asserts that he exists and has released an album, and is sourced only to non-notable blogs and primary sources (i.e. his own social media profiles). I'm willing to withdraw this if a substantive claim of notability, sourced to proper sources, can be provided — but this version, as written, ain't cutting it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what your rationale is. Bad articles should be improved by volunteers at the point of a gun? Nothing suggests you were interested in whether or not he was notable at any point. 78.18.102.158 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article fails to demonstrate, through the use of reliable sources, that he actually meets our inclusion rules for the notability of musicians. It isn't my job to "be interested in whether or not he was notable at any point", if that requires speculative guessing that isn't reflected in the article as written. The onus is on the writer of the article to demonstrate that he is notable enough to pass our inclusion standards — not on Wikipedia to keep an article that, as written, fails to meet our standards just because one anonymous IP thinks (wrongly) that a gun is somehow being pointed at their head. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notability is a property of the subject, not the article. So yes, it is your job. nobody at afd is interested in your reviews of articles. 78.19.99.71 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is not on the writer(s) of the article to demonstrate notability (though it helps), beyond the bare minimum WP:CSD A7 and A9 criteria. The AfD nominator is expected to check for sources: see WP:BEFORE — Gwalla | Talk 17:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the onus is on the writer to at least demonstrate and source enough notability to at least get the person past A7 and A9 (which this article, as written, did not — it was in fact entirely speediable as written, with the fact that it was two years old already being the only reason I opted to take this route instead of pulling the speedy trigger on it.) And I did follow WP:BEFORE enough to know that while outside sourcing isn't entirely nonexistent, there isn't enough of it to actually get him past WP:GNG in any substantive way (even you acknowledge in your comment below that the sourcing you found is "not spectacular".) Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was most certainly not speediable as A7 (or A9, which doesn't apply). A7 specifically says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." (bold in the original). That "even if" clause is important: no sources need to be provided in order to meet that minimal standard. As far as GNG goes, "not spectacular" is not the same as "not significant". There are multiple sources, independent of the subject, which discuss the subject as more than a passing mention. That's GNG. "Not spectacular" was me being self-deprecating about my cursory search. — Gwalla | Talk 21:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly was speediable, as it does not make any actual claim of significance at all — as written, it fails to actually claim anything beyond "this person exists", which is not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Iron Solomon. I found a few sources just in the first page of results from googling him, though they're not spectacular: [1] from Complex Magazine (review of a rap battle he participated in), [2] also from Complex (mostly an interview, but the first page is a brief history of his career), and [3] from Forbes of all things. Past the first page I get [4] from XXL Magazine, [5] from Vibe Magazine (interview with another rapper who beat him in a battle). I think that meets WP:BAND#1. I also ran across [6]. I should also note that the label he's on, Duck Down Music Inc., is clearly notable, though since he appears to only have one album so far he doesn't meet BAND#5. The article should be moved to fix capitalization. — Gwalla | Talk 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. No independent references just a few links to the artist's own website/facebook page Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, how are the references I found not independent? — Gwalla | Talk 16:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's own twitter pager, facebook page and Yout Tube Channel are not independent. The first reference is actually a link to the artist's record label/publisher so that's not independat. -Rehnn83 ^Talk 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the references I found that I linked in this discussion, the ones from Complex, Forbes, XXL, and Vibe. — Gwalla | Talk 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Iron Solomon per Gwalla ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Gwalla. Some of the sources that he's found don't go into enough depth to establish notability; but the Forbes piece and the Complex profile amply satisfy the notability criteria: coverage in some detail, in independent widely-circulated reputable media. Ammodramus (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to proper capitalization. Gwalla's links (Complex, Forbes, XXL, etc.) are dedicated coverage and sufficient for the GNG. czar ♔ 15:43, 24 May 2014 (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.