Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Pappy (3rd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pappy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Still fails at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSICBIO. No effort into making a page about a unsigned artist with little popularity, whatsoever. BJPlaya10 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty in Google news search shown above (it isn't necessary to reproduce them) the Vice article here is significant coverage about his whole life not just his shooting and states that he was famous before he was killed with over a million and half downloads on soundcloud so WP:BIO1E does not apply.Another source about his life here. Previous discussions have hinted at sockpuppetry so hopefully that wont happen here. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only significant coverage is due to his death, so WP:BIO1E is pretty spot on. Even if those sources go more in-depth into his life, they were still done primarily to cover the single event. There is only in-depth coverage from 2 independent sources, both are primarily about his shooting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment google news shows plenty of coverage, more than enough for WP:GNG and the Vice and DNA articles are much more than routine reporting Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -"Google news shows plenty of coverage": except Wikipedia is not news and news reports are treated as primary sources. He is known for one event that was covered briefly in late May but had no long-term impact. He certainly does not pass the general notability guideline when he falls under what Wikipedia is not; hence there are no legitimate claims supporting notability or reason to keep this article in the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fail WP:BIO, and WP:GNG . notability not found Samat lib (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Vice article and DNA article are not news reporting and are secondary sources based on his musical career and likely would not have been published if he was only known for his shooting so WP:GNG is passed WP:NOTNEWS refers to trivial events which this is not. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since when do we define newspapers and magazines as primary sources. They are and always have been secondary sources. They are the type of WP:RS that we seek. You can't just delete something by suddenly changing the rules.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyTheTiger this page is very enlightening on the issue: "Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources". There are more details there. Fortunately, I am actually the one following the rules, as radical as that may sound to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Academia considers newspaper articles less than fifty years old as primary sources so that definition of a primary source does not apply to Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nitpicking about whether newsmedia are primary or secondary sources has little impact on whether they are WP:RS. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. As always the determination of source reliability is dependent upon the fact-source pair. For most facts that they support, newsmedia are RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly not enough coverage of him as a musician to show notability as such. The coverage of his death does not rise above news coverage enough to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am surprised so much argument has occurred on this article. It seems quite clearly non-notable to me. Incredibly stupid comments about whether news is reliable based on crap like: "Academia considers newspaper articles less than fifty years old as primary sources" seems irrelevant, what is relevant is that this is a WP:BIO1E failure, an argument to which no clear rebuttal has been found. Dysklyver 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- nn as a musician and WP:BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2017 (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.