Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murda Beatz

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Beatz

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

It lacks WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:REFERENCE. Only relates to WP:Trivial mentions. No official evidence to prove his contributions, whatsoever. DBrown SPS (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The only articles about this person are either short promotional articles, or primary source interviews such as: [1], [2], [3]. Delete, as it lacks reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that you nominate this for deletion and it hasn't even been a full day of its creation is astounding. But as of right now I am finding other "reliable sources" (in Magnolia's words) to clarify his nobility, because he is a notable producer. JayPe (talk) 16:37 1 November 2016 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: JayPe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Keep this appears to be significant independent coverage, as does this, this, and of course this. Meets GNG. You'll note that I list several of the same pieces as Magnolia677. The four sources I've listed are: notable publications XXL (magazine), The Fader, Exclaim! and a division of Vice Media. The other editor is objecting to them as non-independent sources, which is not the case, even if one is an interview. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." Interviews with the subject of the biography are not secondary sources, they are primary sources. Regarding the links mentioned above:

[4] - An interview.
[5] - Four paragraphs of vacuous, intelligence-numbing filler.
[6] - Two paragraphs of...nothing.
[7] - Another interview. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood what WP:PRIMARY is saying -- that's a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research and to be sure, an interview subject's statement about himself should be used with caution when attempting to verify statements of fact. But if an independent news source decides to publish an interview with an artist, we would consider that as contributing to WP:BASIC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I do see that we have an essay Wikipedia:Interviews but that's not terribly helpful - or well-written. I can see how editors may come to different conclusions based on what policy says -- or doesn't say -- but again, a news source deciding to publish a piece on a non-affiliated subject doesn't knock if off the table for WP:N, simply because it's been presented as an interview rather than rewritten by a journalist as an article. That would make no sense -- far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My read of Wikipedia:No original research is a bit different, as it says in multiple places that interviews are primary sources. Anyway, there is next to nothing published about this person (secondary sources), other than what this person has said about himself. I went looking for some article about this person, but anything not published as an interview seems to be just rapper magazine mush. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing with JayPe and Shawn in Montreal. Xboxmanwar (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources for music such as Fader, Exclaim and XXL Magazine so that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2016 (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.