Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werd (SOS)

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. Tone 13:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werd (SOS)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Overflowing with references (nearly a hundred of them), but almost none of them stand up to scrutiny. Most are links to Bandcamp, iTunes and other sites where you can download Werd's mixtapes and music, or links to blogs (half of which are dead), or the general home pages of organisations with whom Werd has allegedly worked. The best sources for notability are those linked with various BBC music stations, but unfortunately most are for radio shows for which there is no archive, and in any case only demonstrate that Werd was played maybe once or twice, not that his music was placed on rotation, as required by WP:NMUSIC. His appearance in the Charlie Sloth documentary The UK State of Rhyme is limited to an introduction at 30:30 as part of a group of Scottish rappers, and ten seconds of him at 37:30 performing on stage at the Edinburgh Festival. There is also another performance of him on YouTube (citation no. 20) at the Edinburgh Fringe, but none of this provides any biographical or discography detail, and as anyone familiar with the Edinburgh Festival will know, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of performers each year, and few of them are notable simply for performing there. The Scottish New Music Awards don't appear to be notable, nor are the other awards he was nominated for. The guy is talented, no doubt, but I don't see anything that passes the notability standards for a Wikipedia article, and maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If Mark Rankin can have an entry ... this nomination has a whiff of new-establishment bias about it, no more progressive than the Elgar/Vaughan Williams bias of the old print encyclopaedias that Wiki has supplanted. RobinCarmody (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without explaining what notability guidelines this article passes. And the Mark Rankin article like like it should be AfD'd as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I'm glad you think it does (I'd never seen it until trying to find a comparison point), but why has nobody done it? It couldn't be because that article fits within the racist and classist post-Blair new-establishment bias Wikipedia is riddled with and this article doesn't, could it? Singling out this article seems highly suspicious to me, and typical of the limits of liberalism. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5,721,394 articles on the English Wikipedia – it's very likely that many of the non-notable creations lie undiscovered for years until someone comes across them. You say yourself that you found the Mark Rankin article accidentally: I found this one accidentally as well while I was carrying out some disambiguations. So please assume some good faith and don't accuse me of deliberate targetting – I have no interest at all in bringing politics, race or class into any Wikipedia discussion, I simply evaluated this article based on whether it passes WP:GNG, and I believe it doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe move to draft - Reads like promotion. "some of Scotland's top producers and artists in the genre", "eye-catching artwork", "full backing band that includes some of UK's best known professional musicians", the entire Website / Magazine Quotes section. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete between the deadlinks and attempts to download software, I'm done with trying to check these sources after the first few. WP:CITEBOMBing isn't useful. If the creator wants to point me to actual reliable sources with substantial discussion of the subject I might reconsider, but right now this is failing WP:N and WP:PROMOTION. SpinningSpark 19:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all 99 references Spinningspark - I'll help you out here, nos. 16 and 20 are about the only ones that aren't dead and/or spam, and with no. 16 you'll have to fast forward to about 30 minutes into the video. But honestly, I don't see anything that passes WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "the racist and classist post-Blair new-establishment bias". He he, very funny. Whackjob conspiracy theories aside there is nothing here that makes him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2018 (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.