Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semzi

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. A rough consensus finally materialized after the last relist (thank you, Liz!). Owen× 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semzi (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)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER. Sources are either passing mentions, interviews, PRs, or not even mentioning the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Was talking about the subject Yes Vanguard is reliable per WP:NGRS ~ Much like an about music interview ~ Partial
Yes Ditto Yes Guardian Nigeria is reliable per WP:NGRS No Normally, Weekend Beats sounds like PR No
Yes Above No Blog sites No Interview and blog post No
~ A list that mentions articles, more of featuring, no PR here ~ See editorial No List No
No No mention Yes Per WP:NGRS No No mention No
No No mention Yes Ditto No No mention No
No No metion Yes Per above No No mention of the subject No
No Ditto Yes See above No No mention No
No No mention Yes Okay Africa is reliable No Applied same as above No
No No mention No Not a reliable source, blog or PR No Same as above No
No Mention! Yes Why not? No More like PR—get away magazine mention; just mention No
No Passing mention Yes Per WP:NGRS No Inherent mention No
No Les or no mention Yes Max FM is a Lagos based television channel No Inherent notability only on Boy Source No
No Passing mention Yes Culture custodian is a reliable source No Still on production. Inherent notability No
No Focuses on Bad Boy Time, a Nigerian artist Yes Sound City TV is a Nigerian television music channel No Focus lacking on the subject No
No Passing mention Yes Like above No Doesn't meet notability No
No List No Rhythm and Rhyme is a blog site No List No
~ List Yes For the award but not for other citations No Being nominated doesn't mean notability. Per WP:ENT, the subject must have been nominated multiple times of a major award No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: After analysis of the source above, I was convinced of the many "passing mentions", "no mention" and more generated in citing sources relating to PR. Nothing to draftify again. It doesn't meet WP:THREE for sources, WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. Each of the sources either mention, or not at all, or about a music one of an artist he had worked for previously. Delete is the "best" alternative. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In one of the discussions and sources, it submits an evidence about this act who just recently co-produced a track that has over ten credible and notable artistes from Sub-Sahara Africa featured. These artistes have their wiki pages, I believe the professional who takes up the task to fuse these different acts into a single musical project is worthy of an article on Wikipedia as well. ReoMartins (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReoMartins It is imperative for you to know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for you to think an article should be kept. You should also importantly see WP:INHERITED. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, there is already a consensus here if by analysis of the arguments above. Isn't see the reason for relisting. Most importantly, the keep isn't strong enough or showed how the article meets inclusion. The source table can also be reviewed to see blatant addition of sources that doesn't mention the article. (Just a 'simpler' suggestion. ) — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Hehe, if I was an administrator, I would have relisted this discussion too, so don't worry, Liz made the right decision. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanderwaalforces, Sure. It's just that Liz doesn't take time analysing such deletions. Welp, it's good getting clearer consensus. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safari Scribe, well, that's quite an insult I didn't expect to see when I was reviewing open AFD discussions tonight. I'll just leave this one for another closer to handle since you are unsatisfied with how I'm handling things. Again, this is a volunteer hobby, not a job and nothing obligates me to close or relist any AFD discussion but I try to use my best judgment. But I'll leave this one alone and someone else can eventually close it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 April 2024 (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.