Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (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 keep‎. The nomination does not qualify for a "Speedy keep" per WP:SK. But even discarding those two !votes, I still see consensus to retain the article. Kudos to Girth Summit for the diligent CU work. Owen× ☎ 13:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kobi Arad

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Yet another paid for spam page for this non notable musician. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Notability is not inherited from name dropping. None of the listed awards are major (or even credible). Refbombed to primary sources and PR pieces masquerading as real journalism. A single allmusic capsule review is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came across this page with the intention of improving its neutrality and sourcing. While I recognize that the article could benefit from further refinement, it is clear that Kobi Arad meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). He has received multiple awards and nominations, including those recognized as notable within Wikipedia itself—establishing their significance. Notability is defined by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:GNG) rather than subjective interpretations of an award’s importance. Given that sources like JazzTimes and All About Jazz have reviewed his work, and considering his influence within contemporary jazz and fusion, deletion would not align with Wikipedia’s inclusion standards. Instead of removal, enhancing the article to better reflect Wikipedia’s quality guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:V) would be the more constructive course of action. --DenoZUka (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — DenoZUka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I've been an editor for two years and am looking for opportunities to contribute more actively to Wikipedia while improving my editing skills. As part of this, I’ve been reviewing discussions and pages where I can assist. In this case, I agree with DenoZuka that the subject meets the notability criteria under WP:MUSICBIO, given their multiple recognized awards and significant coverage. The sources provided appear to align with Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing, and I believe the article should be improved rather than deleted. I vote to Keep! Nikzadfrance (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — Nikzadfrance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Keep – I am the creator of this page. While I was compensated, I followed all proper AFC procedures and fully disclosed my association, ensuring compliance with all rules. The AFC was approved by Admin @Cullen328, who has made over 112,000 edits.

Kobi Arad meets WP:MUSICBIO as he has received multiple awards, including the Hollywood Music in Media Awards and the Hollywood Independent Music Awards —both of which have Wikipedia pages, confirming their credibility as recognized awards. Additionally, he has been featured in reputable publications such as All About Jazz, Ultimate Guitar, and JazzTimes, none of which were paid placements.

Accusing someone of paid placements without evidence is unwarranted. Furthermore, the nominator had previously marked the page with a Paid Editing Tag but did not initially propose deletion. However, after an experienced admin removed the tag, they suddenly nominated the page for deletion. This seems questionable—perhaps a sign of personal bias or retaliation?Dwnloda (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dwnloda, your page says you edited the Kobi Arad article for payment. How is that an accusation? Isn't it just a statement of fact? Please explain! gidonb (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator appeared to suggest that the subject has paid placements and "PR pieces" in the media. This is what I was addressing. None of the citations I have included are paid. Legally, all U.S.-based publications must disclose paid placements, so if any were sponsored, they would include clear advertising or sponsorship language. Dwnloda (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme said PR pieces masquerading as real journalism. These don’t necessarily require payment. Writers are often busy and underpaid, relying on PR material that they publish with minimal changes. The more obscure the website or publication, the more prevalent this is—though it also exists in major outlets. If someone hires a paid writer for a community encyclopedia entry, PR concerns should extend beyond Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD was in 2010, which isn't particularly strong evidence. The next, in 2020, claims there's been an LTA focused on this page since the first AfD, which if true is suggestive that this new instance of the page is also a product of this LTA. Also, a tenured editor accepting an article at AfC is not protective against deletion; even experienced reviewers can make mistakes and in any case the instructions are to accept if we think it's likely to survive an AfD, which many editors interpret as >50%, so they very well may have thought that it was borderline but worth accepting. A look at the sources, excluding the obvious trivial mentions or database entries:

Several pages in a Master's thesis. I am disinclined to count a MA as an academic source contributing to notability but I suppose it may be acceptable, I'm not familiar with prior art here.
Ultimate Guitar "Community Feed" news article, bylined "eriik22", "written by a UG user". WP:UGS, doesn't contribute to WP:GNG.
JazzTimes review by a "community author", likewise seems user generated.
TunedLoud article. Bylined "Staff". There's a fiverr listing advertising a "professional review styled article" in TunedLoud for $15, which I can't link because fiverr's on the URL blacklist.
TheMusic review. The writer "wants to help you as an artist succeed and get the write-ups your band/Your music deserves! With a writing background of over 15+ years, he will review your music and give your band and/or your music the review it needs to be seen in a manner of professionalism".
Ynet profile. Trying to figure out whether this is likely to be a paid piece through google translate is not going great, so let's give this one a pass.
Edit: the Rolling Stones article's full coverage of Arad: "[The album] prominently features the likes of ... pianist Kobi Arad." Obviously not significant coverage.

So, of all the sources in the article or mentioned at this AfD, contributing to WP:GNG we have a masters thesis and a piece that I'm not convinced isn't paid because I can't read the language. Granting both of these the most benefit of doubt I feel up for, this still comes out to a delete. It is possible there are further sources, especially in Hebrew. I was able to find one in Euclid Magazine, bylined Euclid. They sell sponsored blog posts for $1,200 each, which seem to be unmarked on their website. ...and I can't link it because the entire domain is URL blacklisted, so there's that! Rusalkii (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: awards, both the awards listed do not appear to be particularly prominent - while the bar is subjective, that criteria is "major music award", and "has a Wikipedia article", while pretty much necessary, is not actually anywhere near sufficient. Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources have been proposed, Tonearm and JazzQuad. The Tonearm review looks pretty good, it's not a major magazine by any means but it doesn't seem to be a paid piece and looks like a professional publication with editorial review. The Arad album is one of a fairly long list, but it gets a few dedicated substantive paragraphs so this comfortably more than a brief mention. JazzQuad likewise seems like a reasonably high-quality source. Quite frankly the amount of low-quality/most likely paid sources proffered here + the socking is making me deeply skeptical of all of their sources, but taking them plus the Ynet piece at face value I'd call this a GNG pass and hence a keep. Rusalkii (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid Magazine was not used as a citation, so mentioning it here is irrelevant and misleading, as it implies an accusation of paid media placement. Even if that were the case, this particular source was not included because I prioritized the most credible references when creating the page.

He also has a post here on Hollywood Heat, but to me it didn't appear as a credible source due to low traffic and domain rating. That said, any claims about user-generated content or potential paid placements remain speculative.

Regarding the two awards, while they may not be as prestigious as the Grammys or Oscars, they are still notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. There is no strict policy defining what qualifies as a "significant award," but in my view, an award without a Wikipedia page is unlikely to meet that threshold. Dwnloda (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am in support of keeping this article as he is a notable figure in the jazz music scene, having won multiple awards such as the Hollywood Music in Media Award and the Independent Music Award, has collaborated with renowned artists like Stevie Wonder, Cindy and Carlos Santana, and Roy Ayers, (sources suggests that clearly). Discography is well cited by discogs. Also the page is well-supported by reliable sources, I added a rolling stone link as well, in line with Wikipedia's WP:BLP and WP:GNG guidelines. Wavyydayy (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC) — Wavyydayy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I am strongly opposed to undeclared paid editing and as an administrator, I have blocked 11,482 accounts as of this writing. Probably 80% were undeclared paid editors violating our policies. But paid editing is not banned. Wikipedia has established clear policies and guidelines for paid editors to follow, some of which are required by the Wikimedia Foundation. They must comply with the Paid-contributions disclosure. They must use the Articles for Creation process and abide by the decisions of independent and uninvolved reviewers. They need to refrain from making substantive changes to accepted articles (except for reverting obvious vandalism) and instead place formal Edit requests on article talk pages. The original author of this article has done all of that in good faith. The article has plenty of references. If some are weak, the solution is to remove those, not to delete the article. The musician has won a Hollywood Music in Media Award. This may not be the best known award in music but it is a notable award. Kobi Arad is a notable musician. Not every award is a Nobel Prize. Not every musician is Bob Dylan. Not every physicist is Albert Einstein. Not every politician is Abraham Lincoln. Not every actor is Meryl Streep. This encyclopedia is rapidly approaching seven million articles. When the encyclopedia is constantly swarmed by undisclosed, often malicious paid editors, it is a big mistake, in my view, to target the work of an ethical paid editor trying to do the right thing. It sends the message that many Wikipedia editors will target your work and try to erase it even if you do everything properly, and that just allows the bad actors to rationalize their bad behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing ethical about getting paid to promote someone on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop accusing an editor who has followed all of the rules of being unethical, Duffbeerforme. It is an unacceptable personal attack. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethical" and "allowed" are two different things. The person followed the rules for paid disclosures correctly from what I see. We may not like the rules, but we follow them. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cullen's mic drop. This article checks every box of acceptability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the box for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Article definately meets WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG Afro 📢Talk! 08:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a lot of keep arguments here but afds are not votes. One needs to instead look at the relative strengths of the arguments. Afrowriter's was a WP:VAGUEWAVE at policies. UtherSRG was a mix of WP:PERX and WP:JUSTNOTABLE. Cullen328 is largely a personal essay on what he believes is good behaviour (totally forgetting WP:NOTPROMOTION applies to everyone) but that has nothing to do with notability so is irrelevant here. He then makes a claim about sourcing, "The article has plenty of references", but fails to identify a single good one. Then he says he won "a notable award." but that is not the criteria. More on that later. "Not every musician is Bob Dylan ...." True but that does not make anyone else notable. SPAs Wavyydayy, Nikzadfrance and DenoZUka are just votestacking but they do mention awards and some individual sources. Dwnloda also mentions awards and a few specific sources. So let's look at them

The awards. Multiple say keep because they have a Wikipedia article. That just means they are (barely) notable, not that they are major or even credible (see [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Pérez Garrido|here] for a telling comment from User:Voceditenore). The criteria is a major award which these are not. I have never seen a single precedent that has kept a page due to winning Hollywood Music in Media Awards but I have seen winners deleted. History says they are not good enough. Hollywood Independent Music Awards is just a part of the former and like its parent and is just another award farm.

The sources. Multiple comments have made vague waves about the sources. Specifically All About Jazz, Ultimate Guitar, and JazzTimes. While others just mentioned them Rusalkii actually made an effort to analyse them, pointing out Ultimate Guitar, and JazzTimes are UGS so are not acceptable. They do not belong in a BLP and do not help GNG. And All About Jazz is just a search page. Rolling Stone (India) is also mentioned but is just a passing mention. We do not have multiple independent reliable sources.

There is not a single strong keep comment while Rusalkii gives a very strong delete argument taking the time to actually examine the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Duffbeerforme, trust me, I know how ridiculous it is sometimes to see people getting payment for creating articles on here and not disclosing it. The truth is, most times, the subject passes the necessary notability guidelines but because it is involves undisclosed paid editing, one can easily frown at it. ...skip the stories... For this case, the creator of the draft isn't an "undisclosed" paid editor, they're in fact, the opposite. They didn't just disclose; they followed the laid down principles at WP:PAID, once that is followed, you have no choice but to let it be, whether you're comfortable seeing paid editors or not. The subject passes NMUSICIAN, don't worry, just move on with your wikilife, everything is fine. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add one to the count of WP:VAGUEWAVE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme You have since started bludgeoning, FYI. You don't have to. Allow editors to make their points without being attacked. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ While I appreciate Cullen's defense of the good-faith disclosure made by the paid-editor creator, and with all due respect to the other non-SPA "keep" !voters, whose judgment I generally respect, the sourcing simply isn't there. Arad didn't technically win a Hollywood Music in Media Award; he won an Independent Music Artist award that was issued under the HMMA brand (see here). It seems more like an industry trade group award, not a major award qualifying one for an WP:NBIO#1 pass. And looking through the sources for WP:GNG-qualifying coverage, the only thing I found was the Ynet article. The rest of the sources are a mix of user-generated, database sources and trivial mentions. I don't see multiple independent reviews for any of his albums for an WP:NMUSIC pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and thoughtful approach to evaluating the sources; however, there appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the Hollywood Music in Media Award (HMMA). The subject did indeed win an HMMA, as confirmed by the official winners list (HMMA Winners). The distinction between different categories within the HMMAs does not change the fact that it is an officially recognized HMMA award, making it a verifiable industry accolade.

Given this clarification, the argument that the subject did not win an HMMA is incorrect, which affects the overall assessment of notability. Additionally, the claim that sources are solely ‘user-generated’ does not align with the presence of coverage from Ynet, a major Israeli publication, and other independent sources. Notability should be determined by significant coverage in reliable sources, and the existing evidence supports retention under WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC. Do note that WP:BASIC states that you can combine multiple sources that are not substantial to establish notability. Dwnloda (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that "Industry accolade," as you describe it, does not equal "a well-known and significant award or honor" per WP:NBIO #1. That criterion envisions awards like Oscars, Nobel Prizes, Pulitzers, peerages, etc., that are widely and broadly covered. The HMMAs appear to be covered only in the entertainment trade press. And as I noted in my comment, I don't see sufficient sourcing for any other notability standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s worth noting that the rationale has shifted. Initially, the argument was that the subject lacked notability because they did not win an HMMA—which was factually incorrect. Now, the argument is that an HMMA win does not meet WP:NBIO #1, despite the fact that this policy refers to ‘a well-known and significant award or honor’ without requiring the scale of an Oscar or a Nobel Prize.

By that standard, countless music industry awards—many of which form the basis for WP:NMUSIC notability—would be disregarded. Yet, the HMMAs are widely recognized in entertainment trade publications (which, per WP:RS, are considered reliable for music-related coverage). I also should add that your point of view is in the minority, as several others, including 2 admins do not agree with you. Dwnloda (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, so I don't make decisions by looking at who's in the majority. And please don't misinterpret my rationale as shifting. I have said all along that the sourcing does not support notability on any guideline and that the Independent Music Artist awards and HMMAs, however they may be related, are not significant enough to overcome the inadequate sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 please check these additional sources and reviews The Tonearm, Jazz Quad, Hollywood Heat. Dwnloda (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note This discussion has attracted the attention of a number of blocked (and globally locked) spammers. I have struck through two comments above, which I was able to confirm using checkuser. There is more information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwnloda. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also suspected that some of these voters looked suspicious. I have responded on the investigation page confirming that I was not involved with any of them. Dwnloda (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the SPAs, this still leans toward "keep", but I'd prefer to see more commentary on the available sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I would like to mention that two recent album reviews have been published on The Tonearm and Jazz Quad, which were not considered or discussed by previous voters. Additionally, there is a podcast interview on Podtoppen. While I understand that the interview itself is a primary source, the page also includes a write-up by the publishers, which would be considered a non-primary source.

I hope these further strengthen the case for meeting GNG, in addition to the numerous articles published in jazz publications, Ynet, MusicReview, Rolling Stone India, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwnloda (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : The Ultimate Guitar and Jazz Times sources are RS and cover this person in detail. The rest is gravy. Please keep in mind that promotion can be as simple as having a Wikipedia article to help with search engine rankings, paid or not isn't really the issue. We're only concerned about have it declared properly. I'm not a fan of paid editing myself, for the simple fact that you can ask and it can be done for free, but that's not for AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this another case where you relied on a tool and didn't look at the sources? Did you try read the above comments? Those two sources are from the community sections so are no good for GNG and we must "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people,". See the urls www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/jazz_pianist_kobi_arad_a_career_overview.html jazztimes.com/community/articles/25571-kobi-arad-s-ancient-novice clearly marked. Given that these can not be used in a BLP I will remove them. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme, that's a pretty sharp tone to take with anyone, much less a good-faith AfD regular. @Oaktree b, I have to agree, these sources are WP:USERGENERATED, even if the overall publication is considered reliable for its editorial content, and thus inappropriate to qualify for GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the "community" in the URL path means it is user generated. I have checked Ultimate Guitar, even tough it appears they may have User Generate content, the URL for it has this path https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/ug_news/

/ug_news/ is in the URL path, not /community_feed/. On Jazz Times, there is no mention of User Generated content on their website anywhere or that such content is allowed or accepted. You cannot just assume such things and remove citations. You need to provide better evidence.

@duffbeerforme, please refrain from making personal attacks. There's no need to defend your nomination so aggressively. You've already shared your perspective—now allow others to cast their votes without further argument. Dwnloda (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sources I cited have been removed from the article. Perhaps when I have a moment, I'll dig through the page histories and take a look again. Thanks for the heads up. And for Duff, yes I use tools, I'm using one when I respond to these votes as well. Manually editing Wiki in this day and age is tedious, tools help us all get more done. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My !Vote struck above, will need to re-review before offering an opinion again. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b please check these new sources not in the article The Tonearm, Jazz Quad, and Hollywood Heat. Also could someone please add them, as I am the paid editor that created the page and cannot do direct edit. Please also note the awards that he has. 2 of the awards have Wiki pages, making them notable awards. Dwnloda (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Hollywood Heat (its editorial policy is not clearly stated and it looks like a blog, even though it has/had an editorial staff), but Jazz Quad and The Tonearm appear to be independent, reliable source reviews of Arad's album Warping, contributing to a bare pass of WP:NMUSIC. Switching my !vote to a weak keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough reviews of his albums for him to meet WP:NMUSIC. I have added the sources from The Tonearm and JazzQuad found by Dwnloda. I have also deleted an Amazon link used as a ref. I note that the AllMusic and All About Jazz citations are to his artist page, not to individual reviews of albums, which would be much more useful (sorry I don't have time to add them). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly, I'm not sure... I thought the first sources I identified were ok, but it seems not. I'm not certain about the rest. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2025 (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.