Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MattyBraps

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. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MattyBraps

[edit]
MattyBraps (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)

This kid is only ten years old and does not warrant an article about himself yet. First, the songs he sings are mostly written by someone older than him, like his parents or possibly a songwriter. This means that he basically just sings the songs (which other artists do as well...but other artists help write their songs) Secondly, he has not made videos with other musicians, or gotten to the level of fame that other Youtube stars have gotten to on Youtube. All in all, he is just a child/kid who raps songs he most likely does not write. Even some of his videos where he is just talking, it sounds like he is reading words off of a teleprompter or something. Perhaps this article can be recreated when he becomes notable outside of Youtube, like Cimorelli, Cody Simpson, Austin Mahone, Ryan Beatty, and Justin Bieber. For now, he really is not much different than some other ten year old that posts a video of them singing or rapping, gets a million or so views on their video, and ends up on Ellen or something (which makes them possibly just as famous as MattyB). Lastly, the amount of press he receives seems less than other Youtube musicians, like the ones I linked above, receive/received when they were only notable on Youtube. Andise1 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name and DOB are featured prominently on his website [1], which I believe would be acceptable per WP:PRIMARY -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Changed my mind; charting on Social 50 is not notable. Keep - As much as I despise these kinds of articles, the subject of this article appears to meet notability guidelines. He charted on Billboard. His age is irrelevant, as is how old his songwriters are, as is the fact that he doesn't write his own music (some of the most notable musicians never wrote their music), as is someone's judgment of the quality of his music. Cresix (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be nitpicking here, but the relevant notability guideline, WP:MUSICBIO, says a subject is likely notable if "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." At first I thought that the Billboard reference covered it, but that's not a music chart, it's the Social 50 chart, which covers someone's YouTube and other social media views. I don't know if the appearances on local programs and other things make artist notable, but I don't think the Social 50 chart meets WP:MUSICBIO #2, because it's not based on songs or albums, but YouTube views which could be easily manipulated. - SudoGhost 06:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to play Devil's Advocate, WP:MUSICBIO also says "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network", which he has been more than once. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think performing on a show is the same as being a featured subject, those shows were most certainly not about the individual. I'm still looking into the notability issue, but if the subject is notable, it isn't a strong case for notability. - SudoGhost 11:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The primary criteria is WP:GNG, which he probably meets. WP:MUSICBIO doesn't override WP:GNG. I agree, his TV appearances are unremarkable, with nothing much said about him other than being 'cute' and young. Hence my 'weak' keep. Sionk (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not a guarantee of notability, it is a presumption. When a musician falls short of the relevant notability guideline for musicians, that is more telling than a few brief sources that would barely meet WP:GNG. Meeting the WP:GNG does not mean that the subject warrants an article on Wikipedia, especially when the notability guideline that specifically deals with this type of article says otherwise. - SudoGhost 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the opposite understanding from the one I've always had. WP:NMUSIC are alternative notability criteria, not the primary one. But I've no great love for a rapping kid, so it's really neither here nor there to me :) Sionk (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also need to stop using phrases such as "GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL". Not only is this a violation of WP:CIVIL, it does nothing to help your argument. Your threat to repeatedly create the article if it is deleted, and your assuming ownership of the article, also indicate that you have no intention of following the usual procedures of discussion and collaboration that are a foundation of Wikipedia. Your profound immaturity has probably done more to damage the case for keeping this article than anyone in this entire discussion. Cresix (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a musician, the subject fails WP:NMUSIC. The subject arguably meets WP:GNG by the skin of its teeth, but what coverage does exist is far from significant coverage, and isn't enough to base any real article off of. It is probably just a case of it being too soon to have an article about this subject. - SudoGhost 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST KEEP - MattyBRaps has been on the Today Show, Fox News Alanta, the Dr.Phil Show, the Westie Wilhem Show and Ellen. He has met Katy Perry, Far East Movement, Perez Hilton ( who is a big MattyBRaps fan, Ryan Zecrest and many other celebrities. He has recieved more youtube views than Rebecca Black and no one has decided to take down her page. He has also recieved more subscribers on Youtube than Harry Styles and is ranked 188th out of all youtube channels by subscribers. He has recieved more youtube views than cimorellitheband, espn, BarackObamadotcom, pbs, googlecrome and playstation. He has the 10th most populare keek account for the US and 20th for the world. He has more keek views than all of the kardassian sisters combined. He has recieved a steady coverage from the media and his new single you make my heart skip has been aired on the radio in Wilmington, DE. He has done a cover of Ice Ice Baby with Vanilla Ice himself and to this day is the only one to have done a cover with him. He makes 1,250,000 dollars a year off of youtube alone more than Rebecca Black and thats why the article should stay hes famous and if you take away his page take away Rebecca Blacks pand the kardassians pages too since he has become more famous than them and it would seem if you take this page down there pages should go to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTO98 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — BTO98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just to let you know, Youtube views are not that relevant when deciding whether someone is famous enough for an article on Wikipedia. The amount of celebrities he has met is also irrelevant, as well as the actual celebrities he met. Being the 188th most popular channel by subscribers is also not a big factor in deciding whether there should be an article about MattyB. Even if it was a factor, being the 188th subscribed Youtuber is kinda not that special because there are 188 Youtubers ahead of him. Also, ask any teenage girl right now who is more famous, and most likely 99% of them will say Harry Styles...some will probably have no idea who MattyB is. "He has recieved more youtube views than cimorellitheband, espn, BarackObamadotcom, pbs, googlechrome, and playstation." The amount of Youtube views he receives is irrelevant. All of the Youtube accounts you mentioned (in the previous sentence I quoted) are clearly notable to more people who do not use Youtube (with the exception of possibly Cimorelli). I am positive way more people know what ESPN, PBS, BarackObama, Google Chrome, and Playstation are than who MattyB is. "He has more keek views than all of the kardassian sisters combined." The thing with that statement is...is that the Kardashians have their own television show, they are already known to tons of people in the world. The amount of keek views is irrelevant because 1) keek is not a super popular website and 2) more people know the Kardashians than MattyB. "He has done a cover of Ice Ice Baby with Vanilla Ice himself and to this day is the only one to have done a cover with him." This may be true, but it is not something that makes him special. If you look at other Youtubers, like Keenan Cahill (BeanerKeeKee19952), he has a lot of videos of himself with other celebrities. "He has recieved a steady coverage from the media and his new single you make my heart skip has been aired on the radio in Wilmington, DE." I am pretty positive getting a song to be played on a radio station does not mean you are famous enough for an article on Wikipedia. "He has met Katy Perry, Far East Movement, Perez Hilton ( who is a big MattyBRaps fan, Ryan Zecrest and many other celebrities." So have other Youtubers like Keenan Cahill, who I mentioned above. "He makes 1,250,000 dollars a year off of youtube alone more than Rebecca Black and thats why the article should stay hes famous and if you take away his page take away Rebecca Blacks pand the kardassians pages too since he has become more famous than them and it would seem if you take this page down there pages should go to." How much money he makes is also not relevant when deciding whether an article about him should be on Wikipedia. There are tons of Youtube musicians who make quite a bit of money from Youtube, but they all do not have articles about themselves on Wikipedia. Not everyone goes on the internet. To be more specific, not everyone goes on the internet and searches for videos and stuff about the Kardashians or Rebecca Black. The thing is...is that both the Kardashians and Rebecca Black are more famous than MattyB. Rebecca Black's Friday was a song that basically the whole internet listened to and talked about...like Gangnam Style and the Harlem Shake. The Kardashians have had multiple television shows (and are still on television today), been dating/married to various celebrities and professional athletes. Andise1 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTO98, you can't vote twice. You have claimed as both BTO98 and anon 50.130.43.201 that you created the article, not to mention that both of your identities have very similar writing styles. And trust me, Wikipedia can confirm that you are using both identities, and you can be blocked for a long time (perhaps indefinitely) for sockpuppetry and vote-stacking. Please remove one of your votes. Cresix (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohh oops well number one I have no idea who the 50 person is but if its me i remove that vote I didnt know thta I was logged out today and then i logged back in but I don't know my IP adress but I don't use all caps so its probally not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTO98 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If" it's you??? You know it's you. So remove one of your votes (take it off of this page, don't just say "I remove one of my votes"); otherwise you will have to learn the hard way that vote-stacking by sockpuppetry is one of the most egregious policy violations on Wikipedia. You can make all the comments you want, but remove one of your "STRONGEST KEEP" votes. Now. Cresix (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you guys are dense. I am puppet-mastering you so, so hard. And no, you'll never manage to get this deleted. Mattyb makes enough cash to buy off Jimmy Wales himself. I also love that you're frustratedly linking an obvious troll that's insulting you to Wikipedia pages on how that's uncivil. Welcome to the Internet. Mattyb forever~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.43.201 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Cresix, this is not a vote. This is a discussion. Therefore, there is no "vote stacking" and no "second votes" because there are no "first votes". BTO98 is free to participate in the discussion as long as it is not disruptive. Also, please remember to not bite the inexperienced users and remain civil. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using multiple identities to try and influence an AfD is disruptive. That's why BTO98 has been blocked. Sionk (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption doesn't make this a vote, nor is it an invitation to bite or be uncivil. The combative and uncivil response to BTO98 only escalated the disruption. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shinmawa, the use of the word "vote" on Wikipedia is common among experienced editors to indicate a statement of "delete", "agree", etc on AfDs, RfCs, and other similar pages. That's why the word in used on policy and guideline pages such as WP:SOCK and WP:VOTESTACKING. So please spare us the condescending preaching to regulars about "not a vote". And I never said anyone could not discuss as much as they want, I said no one is allowed to VOTE more than once. If you have a problem with me, take it up on my talk page because this is not the appropriate venue. But if you consider calling an editor out for making comments such as "GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL", or for telling someone they can't violate policy and votestack through sockpuppetry, or for lying about sockpuppetry (and please, please notice that the person guilty of sockpuppetry was blocked) inappropriate, then don't waste my time and yours messaging me. We will simply have to agree to disagree about what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sensible, if BTO98 were the IP user instead of me. BTO is unfortunately dumb and did not realize I was intentionally muddying the waters. This should be fairly obvious to anyone who looks at the revisions and reads the talk history (seriously, why would BTO repeatedly vandalize his own article?). I've said this explicitly several times now, but since you don't want to look dumb for banning someone (and lecturing them hilariously) you'll continue to ignore it. As expected. Good show, Wikieditors. Don't you have some anime entries to micromanage? 64.134.184.251 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was truly uncalled for, Cresix... and quite out of line. It is that "I'm more experienced than you and therefore I can talk down to you" attitude that is the exact problem I am referring to (also, in this case, it is also laughably inaccurate). However, this discussion has gotten way off-track and wish to spend no more time on it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need to spend no more time on this issue because your laughably bizarre accusations have no basis in reality. Cresix (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard's Social 50 is not a song or album chart, which is what WP:NMUSIC #2 entails. Billboard has a few non-song/album charts but WP:NMUSIC #2 specifically excludes them since they aren't typically indicative of notability. Topping the Social 50 is certainly an indication of notability, but individuals who do that have notability that is established elsewhere; other than topping that specific chart, I don't even think it's an indication of notability, much less something that would establish notability for an article. - SudoGhost 13:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All WP:NMUSIC says is "any country's national music chart". Can you cite the specific policy that states that non-music Billboard charts are unacceptable? If Billboard ran a chart with the lamest edit wars, we ought to be able to use it, since a publication with national coverage and a track record of responsible journalism has declared them worthy of note (ie: notable) to print for wide distribution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the part right before what you quoted; what it says is "a single or album on any country's national music chart" and this individual has not had that. - SudoGhost 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this boils down to whether or not you take the exact letter of the law in the notability guidelines, or think about whether other circumstances are appropriate, which will never get unanimous agreement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This MTV Greece source seems to be about him, as does this minor news article. Not a lot, but it's specifically about him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that second source says concerning the individual is "music by entertainer Matty B" and that's it, that's a perfect example of trivial coverage. The first has more content, but not much, and is not specifically about the individual, but rather several young musicians, and uses several examples, him being one of them. - SudoGhost 20:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "Not a lot!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After consideration, I feel this subject merits an article. Being in the Billboard Social 50 -- by itself -- is not notable. Being a popular YouTube person -- by itself -- is not notable. Even being featured and interviewed on nationally and internationally televised shows like "Ellen" and the "Wendy Williams Show" is not -- by itself -- all that notable. However, when taken as a group, in addition to the internet print media about this subject, shows a pattern of multiple, independent, reliable references and appearances by this young performer. In that regard, he easily passes WP:GNG. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He may pass WP:GNG, but he also has to pass WP:NMUSIC as well. As of right now, he passes #1 (but more sources would be nice). It does not seem he passes any of the other criteria for musicians and ensembles. (I do not feel he passes #12 yet because he has not been the main subject of a television show yet. Andise1 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I disagree that WP:NMUSIC overrides WP:GNG. They are meant to compliment each other, not supplant. However, it only takes one criterion to pass, which you admitted the subject did (#1). Besides, there are other considerations here. Given the unique nature of this subject, attempting to pigeonhole this into "music" ignores the social aspect. Attempting to look at just the social aspect ignores the music. This is why I'm taking more of a "whole picture" approach to this subject to see if the subject, taken in its entirety, sums up to something greater than its individual parts. In this case, I felt it did. As an aside, I disagree with your interpretation of #12. It says a "segment" not a full program. However, I think that parsing these guidelines to that degree is counter-productive (and bordering on wikilawyering). -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "social aspect" would require sources that document that, and that does not exist. If it does pass WP:GNG, it does not do so by any real measure; this article has nothing more than trivial and/or brief sources, and WP:GNG specifically points out that meeting WP:GNG is not a guarantee of any notability, especially when the subject fails the more specific and relevant notability guideline. When all it has is a weak claim of meeting WP:GNG, that's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Maybe in a few years when the subject actually becomes notable, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. - SudoGhost 18:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "social aspect" I was referring to was the Billboard Social 50 and things along that line. I believe that is well-documented here and in the article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considerations as to who does what aside, I feel this is one of those cases where the subject is scraping the edge of WP:GNG but is not quite there yet. And I do not believe WP:MUSICBIO is being met here at all.
  • Weak delete - per SudoGhost basically. I think we'd be bending the edges of WP:N to squeak this one in when, realistically, this is probably a matter of WP:TOOSOON. The obvious sock-puppetry and teenage hysteria aren't doing the subject any favours but I've tried to disregard that as much as possible in considering this against policy and both Ritchie333 and Shinmawa make some good points in that regard. Stalwart111 03:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree with that - this is right on the edge in terms of notability. In fact, I'm actually pondering switching to "weak delete" solely on the ground that not preserving the article would help the subject's privacy, since he's quite young. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even considered that, but it is an important consideration. That just reinforces it for me. Stalwart111 12:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing anywhere on Wikipedia that puts an age limit on notability. Privacy isn't a reason to delete an article. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just clarify why this is unreliable? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does MTV Greece have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Encyclopedias are supposed to be written on hard sources, not entertainment websites. Besides the dubious nature of the source website, the style of writing is thoroughly informal and not the dispassionate, disconnected, neutral style of a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, as an established news outlet, MTV would be expected to have a good reputation for fact-checking. Based on this past precedent when an MTV article was consulted on the reliable sources noticeboard, I note the consensus then was "An interview conducted by MTV seems to be an acceptable source for a music-related topic such as those you are working on". So yes, it would seem by consensus we do consider it reliable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable or not, it doesn't qualify as "significant coverage" in my opinion. I admit I can't read Greek, but it is only two sentences - there's just no room for any detailed coverage. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the toughest AfDs are when it comes down to opinions on whether the coverage is significant. That's why I said this could go either way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there - "significant" is obviously going to be interpreted differently by different people. I guess that's why we have these discussions. Cheers! Dawn Bard (talk) 15:48, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MattyBraps&oldid=1266208705"