Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZephyrMusic (2nd nomination)

ZephyrMusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Recently recreated article previous deleted. I speedied it as G4 this morning, but the page creator User:SparklingBlueMoon says sources are improved so I undeleted it on request. I'm not satisfied this meets BLP or BAND per applied or found sources. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets BLP and WP:GNG. I am convinced that this person can be included in our encyclopedia. He appears in several reliable media where articles are entirely devoted to him, such as in La Voix du Nord, l'Observateur, and l'Avenir. He also appears in reliable media such as Canal FM and Muséanima. There are also interviews, but I do not count them as they cannot demonstrate notoriety by their nature as primary sources, but it is important to know that they exist and that they can be used in a non-abusive way and by being coupled with reliable sources to support the article. The sources span several years, which shows a long-term interest from the media, namely that not all the sources can be found online or in physical version in the article. There are enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article about him in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Still unclear that he meets WP:BLP or WP:MUSICIAN. The article reads as WP:PROMO with all kinds of details that are unnecessary for someone of his standing. As far as sourcing: The Canal FM source mentions a "Karl" but without last name and without any sort of in-depth coverage. That is not significant coverage that would count towards notability. The Muséanima site is inaccessible. Wikifamouspeople remains user-generated and unreliable. The BBC article doesn't mention him at all, and its inclusion is a bit of WP:SYNTH. As for l'Observateur and L'Avenir, I'm also not convinced that the articles are anything other than minor interest pieces. They don't really establish global notability. I have newspaper articles written about me and that interview me; and yet I am not notable enough for a wiki page. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:NBIO. I've only seen one RS in the reference section of the article. All the others are mentions, tangentially related to the subject, user generated pages or broken. Couldn't find any other RS. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, it is in accordance with WP:SIGCOV... I don't know how you checked the sources... I easily count more than 5 reliable sources, La Voix du Nord which has a Wikipedia article here, L'Avenir the same, l'Observateur is also a reliable newspaper which is also certified "Journalism Trust Initiative", Canal FM and Muséanima are also reliable sources. The majority of sources are entirely written about this person, we go far beyond simple mentions. For user-generated content, you must be referring to Wikifamouspeople? Despite its name, it is not actually a wiki where everyone can contribute, I can't see Leonardo Dicaprio or Kevin Hart going to this site to create their profile, it is an editorial team that writes profiles with the sources it finds on people who are at least notable. With a simple search I found other sources, obviously I didn't find and put all the sources that can be found on the internet or in physical form in the article. I've seen articles that are much less well sourced but have no problem, we don't understand anything anymore. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  La Voix du Nord is the only source I could consider. As Darth Stabro said, l'Observateur is a minor interest piece. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:MUSICIAN.

  Could you provide a link to an article in the L'Avenir site (www.lavenir.net)?

  The Canal FM source is only a mention. Muséanima is down and a very minor site, mostly of video clips. In the front page and in every page of Wikifamouspeople there's a link to create a free profile. Not RS at all.

  If you find other reliable sources with a simple search, please add them to the article or to a comment so the community can review them. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The AfD is not a vote but is based on arguments and explanations, so I'll take the time to explain why I think this person is eligible for inclusion on our Wikipedia:

If we look at all the criteria that apply to the person:

WP:BLP : Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the utmost care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Verifiability? → Yes, the text is based on reliable sources Written in a neutral tone? → Yes, the text is written in Wikipedia's recommended style and does transcribe what is stated in the sources Original research? → No, all the text is written based on sources; there is no unsourced information.

WP:BLP is respected.

Next, for WP:GNG : A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the topic.

"Significant coverage"→ Yes, this article has sources spanning several years, demonstrating that the person has generated media attention over several years. Furthermore, the page contains articles from reliable media outlets such as La Voix du Nord, L'Observateur, L'Avenir and others, entirely focused on the person and of sufficient length; it is not just a simple mention or a few short lines.

"Reliable" → Yes, several sources discussing this person are known to be reliable news sites, and some even have their own Wikipedia page here, such as La Voix du Nord and L'Avenir. L’Observateur which has existed for over 170 years and has the Journalism Trust certification is a reliable source, there are also Canal FM and Muséanima as reliable sources.

"Sources" → Yes, a large proportion of sources are secondary; they are sometimes combined with other types of sources to support the article.

"Independent of the subject" → Yes, the majority of sources are undoubtedly independent and written by journalists. If we take the case of Wikifamouspeople, it is not a user-generated source because it is not actually a real Wiki and only a few members of the editorial staff can write profiles.

WP:GNG is also respected.

For WP:MN

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theater groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. → Yes

So he also respects WP:MN.

According to a contributor, the article reads like promotional material, but all the content is sourced, there is no unpublished work, and there are no links attempting to redirect to this person's music or these networks, and if passages seem promotional then they can be removed or reformulated but that is not an argument for deletion. Too much information? Like any Wikipedia biography, I find it logical to talk about their childhood, their education, their musical style and influences, etc. If we look at Canal FM, we see that the person's name is Karl, he is 20 years old at the time of writing, and finally, we clearly recognize him in the photo that illustrates him on Canal FM, so we are indeed talking about the right person. Muséanima was accessible recently, it covered the subject in detail, it may be a temporary outage of the site, if it does not improve I will recover the archived version on Wayback Machine, the article is not lost. For Wikifamouspeople, I won't explain again why the content isn't actually user-generated. L'Observateur and L'Avenir write about the subject in detail and are reliable secondary sources. Also, I would like to remind you that as stated in WP:N it says "There is no fixed number of sources required", there is no minimum or maximum number of references for a subject to be included in Wikipedia, we are just asked that there are reliable sources and that it meets criteria, which is the case here. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With the sources we currently have and with the criteria of WP:BLP, WP:GNG and WP:MN respected, we could keep the article. If passages need to be removed, let's remove them. There are already quite a few reliable sources, but the contributors seem disturbed or undecided because they would like even more sources, in this case let's not delete the article but simply put the "Citation Needed" template at the top of the article, this template exists for that. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]