Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blak Prophetz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Prophetz (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)

Musical group, but I can't find any indepth, reliable, and independent sources which discuss it. All sources are superficial (mere listings of their recordings) or they aren't reliable (a few non-reliable blogs) or they aren't independent (the group's own website, for example). It doesn't appear that any reliable sources have covered this group outside of themselves, and as such, the article does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. Jayron32 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, This article should not be deleted. There are reliable sources available on the artist in question. You are bullying and not explaining your reasons rationally. It is clear that the artists has had releases and has been involved in TV campaigns. Instead of screaming delete! delete!, You have been broad in your statements with no real clarification behind your accusations in trying to fix the article which offends you so greatly. Stop being so unhelpful and be more accurate with reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John shaftman (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 March 2013‎
Please show which words I wrote above were not rational, or please show where I screamed "delete! delete!". I have simply and rationally explained why this article needs to be deleted, and I have not screamed. --Jayron32 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- To be considered notable enough for an article they need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Can you find any newspaper articles that mention them, for instance? Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you added does not mention the band.Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and user is a sockpuppet.Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article Look again user:Paul Bardson was right to submit the link, the article submitted does mention the band. user:john shaftman 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link I removed was this one [1] and it doesn't mention Blak prophetz? Please assume good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is good and truthful, Much of what the artist has achieved was pre-internet and documented in magazines which has not yet full been available electronically. It is clear that there are sources and it is clear that the artist in question has achievements. The user user:Theroadislong has been harassing this creator of the article without understanding that the user user:john shaftman has been trying to comply and help. Links to external sources has been provided as proof of the works by the artist. To say that the artist does not exist is an outright tactic of bullying as there are factual evidence out there that does demonstrate that the artist is prominent and is and has worked with prominent and other known and respected artists who would vouch for his work.

KEEP THE ARTICLE It is unfortunate that the artist has become a target as no one other user has looked into the Wikipages of the very people he has worked with without order or stipulating that those pages be also deleted as harshly as the Blak Prophetz page has been targeted as they too consist of similar styled references. Stop bullying and targeting the article without looking at the other sources they are referencing. If Blak prophetz is guilty then so are all the others he has done work with. Not all documentation of achievements can be found electronically but it is clear that publications are talking about the achievements.

[1] Hello Cotton

[2]British Hip Hop Database

[3]Flavour Magazine (A Reputable Music Publication in the UK)

[4]UG Rap Online Magazine, Europe

[5] Blues and Soul , which was added by user: Paul Bardson and disregarded.

Literally 5 mins after user:Paul Bardson published a reference it was targeted by user:Theroadislong to disregard with insult. This is targeting and bullying and it should not be allowed.

Keep Article It is clear that they do exist and they qualify for a place on Wikipedia. The author of the article has asked you on many occasions to help and to stop being so insulting and instead help to build the article in a respectful manner as it is clear they have done work. Wikipedia should not allow targeting in this manner.

I would like to see the delete statement at the top of the article removed from the article as it is insulting especially when there are pages within the article referenced which are like the very article which has not been targeted for deletion in this way. please take your time to look at the other articles referenced by the creator of the article and you will not find a single article deemed for deletion in this manner. user:john_shaftman —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Keep : The Article Blak Prophetz

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - Section C,

Point 1. - If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. The article should not had been pushed for speedy deletion.

This article is not being "pushed for speedy deletion". This is a discussion of whether this article belongs in Wikipedia. "Normal editing" will not fix the deficiencies in the article.

Point 2. - If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. The contributor issuing the speed deletion ignored the the user:john shaftman's request and plea for time to update the article correctly. The author is and was seeking Editor assistance and guidance at the time, hence the request for time which was ignored.

John, this article was not recently created. You created this article on 10 July 2007.[2] Maintenance tags were added that reliable sources were needed to establish notability shortly after it was created.[3] Other maintenance tags were added[4] by and editor and you promptly removed them[5] without improving the article and did so again[6][7] and again[8][9] and again.[10][11] Five years is more than sufficient time to improve sources to establish notability and generally develop the article.

Keep According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Section D.

Point 2. - If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. The user issuing the AFD Nomination did not give the contributing author user:john shaftman enough time to obtain help to fix the article. The focus was primarily to insult and delete with these simple considerations.

As noted above, sufficient time was available to fix the article.

Point 3. - If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. - The user forcing deletion did not comply instead requested speedy deletion therefore invited disagreement to the author with a cause for argument, This behavior could be considered Harassment hence the authors reaction to removing the AFD consistently was a reaction to the disagreement as there was no consideration of time to improve or assist.

Maintenance tags should not be removed until the noted problems are removed. Removing unsourced material from articles is not harassment, it's Wikipedia policy. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 19:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is on these grounds I request a Speedy keep and the removal of the AFD Notice on the said page entitled Blak Prophetz

(User:john shaftman) 19:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please visit the article entitled Demon Music Group owners of Track licensing and you will see evidence. If you still can't see it, then here is a raw link to their home page, simply scroll down the page and you will see Identifying reliable sources. You might then even reply with the claim that Demon Music Group does NOT exist and it is a made-up scam who makes the claim to be owned by the BBC. Please also reveal and tell us, which sources you used to check for globally music released singles or albums as you claim is not valid if the band holds a valid registered Barcode and ISRC code registered with Neilson Nielsen Company. Therefore I suggest you try typing the following registered barcode into Google 829282000030 Your claim in itself is unreliable as you have not revealed your method of investigation. I find it stunning how such a statement and 'claim' of personal promotion can be made without revealing methods used to investigate. This article meets and is currently been worked on. Visit [- Global Barcode Search]

(User:john shaftman) 19:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added the details of Blak Prophetz to the Demon Music Group article but there is no evidence of them on the website? http://www.demonmusicgroup.co.uk/ArtistAZ?arg=B Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demon Music Group handle labels, Artist and Track Licensing, Please click on the icon called 'Track Licensing on the top right, then scroll down on the home page and you will see the artist known as Sure Shot aka Blak Prophetz where they also speak of the Mentos TV Advert which they did the music for. Track Licensing is the licensing division for DMG, owned by the same company and the BBC - Previously know as 2 Entertain who got taken over. I understand that you want the answers blatantly and directly but sometimes a little research helps. (User:john shaftman) 12:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the responsibility of the reader to do the research. If YOU want to add material to Wikipedia, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the reference to a reliable source; see WP:BURDEN. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David, Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentos_fruity_3 - I take it this has no reliable sources righty and will be recommended for speedy deletion too, yes? (User:john shaftman) 12:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(User:john shaftman) 09:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(User:john shaftman) 09:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's a 6 line review of one record, and the source is hardly reliable. Major hip-hop press would be magazines like Vibe or The Source or Hip Hop Connection, which are well respected hip hop magazine. Your link is to a website which does not appear to be a well-respected reputable source of music industry journalism, and doesn't appear to have been active since 2011 (the copyright notice has not been updated since then). A single 6 line review in a sketchy website which may or may not even still be active is not enough to hang a Wikipedia article on. Extensive, repeated, and in-depth coverage in magazines like Vibe or The Source would be. Come back when magazines of that caliber and reputation cover this act. --Jayron32 20:46, 31 March 2013 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.hellocotton.com/mentos-3-gum-one-s-good-three-s-better-triple-hydraulics-donk-commercial-song-what-is-rap-mentos-tv-advert-remix-by-blak-prophetz-1717263
  2. ^ http://www.britishhiphop.co.uk/features/articles/fatt_jointz_entertainment.html
  3. ^ http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/video-the-soul-garden-unveil-dont-stop-the-hustle/
  4. ^ http://www.ugrap.de/album_review.php?id=766
  5. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QylLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT4&img=1&pgis=1&dq=blak+prophetz&sig=ACfU3U3fP4-CYwrh3WmyIjaoVBo0Yxu3Yg&edge=0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blak_Prophetz&oldid=1116188282"