Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celph Titled (2nd nomination)
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. Not subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Celph Titled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Non-notable, failed previous AfD, still fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anything changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celph Titled?--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC in every way, though I like his recording name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Before this gets closed, it might be worth looking through these to see if there are any non-trivial mentions. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now deleted the material that appeared to have been copied from another website, and have added a few of the media mentions, which mostly help to verify his many collaborations with other (blue-linked) artists. Although the discussions about Celph himself are brief there are many, more than just the five I added. I would say keep, per WP:MUSIC criterion #1 and give this article more of a chance to expand. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Please identify the specific sources you feel are significant coverage in reliable sources. The first few I get in that search are a blog, two sentences in an article identifying him and other "new talent", another blog, minor mention, mentions in a non-reliable source, etc. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mdsummermsw, I'll rephrase. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - adequate coverage PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you please explain which sources you feel show that Celph Titled is the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable"? Of the examples I cited above, all were trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This mention isn't entirely trivial. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the entire content of that: Celph Titled was a producer, first in 1997 with his own group, then with Kool G. Rap and Ice-T. His single, "Right Now" was heard by a DJ. I don't see that as substantial coverage. I could write more, citing reliable sources, about my 5th grade gym teacher. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This mention isn't entirely trivial. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you please explain which sources you feel show that Celph Titled is the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable"? Of the examples I cited above, all were trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (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.