Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swizzz (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swizzz

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Swizzz (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)

Three times deleted as Swizzz and six times deleted as SwizZz and salted and now recreated again as Swizzz. A plethora of refs looks good at first sight but an examination of them reveals that many are to the same sites - some sites are possibly not reliable, including YouTube links, and reviews on download sites. In view of the numerous previous deletions, I'm asking the community to decide whether or not this article meets WP:Musicbio. I have no vested interest in the outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Citations that discuss him already in the article include LA Weekly, HipHopDX (5x), XXL Magazine (5x), Complex Magazine, AllMusic, Refined Hype, DJBooth.net, and Respect., among others. Also the YouTube video is on the interviewers official YouTube account, so it may be used, and there are no reviews to download sites as the nominator falsely claims. He meets multiple points of WP:MUSICBIO, including #1 (coverage in reliable sources as already mentioned), #4 (Funk Volume 2012 Tour and the respective documentary made about it [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and #5 for releasing two albums on a "important indie label (Funk Volume) with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." You failed to do WP:BEFORE, and realize that just because new users over created an article a few years ago, does not mean someone that actually knows what they are doing won't come along and make a good one, after his notability has clearly been established. STATic message me! 04:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 15:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Flooding an article with bad sources (shops, blog, download sites) does not make him notable. Sources above claimed to discuss him most merely mention him, none are indepth. He does not pass #4 as Funk Volume making a documentary about Funk Volume is not independent. Does not pass #5 as Funk Volume does not have a roster of many notable artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, you are incorrect, the documentary is being made by a third party company. Again, there are no blogs used, and iTunes only is used to support retail releases for the singles/projects. Also wrong about the coverage, the LA Weekly source covers him very significantly, he is mentioned about 6-10 times, with multiple paragraphs discussing him throughout the piece. The majority of the sources also either significantly discuss him or only discuss him. Also how does Funk Volume not have a roster of notable acts? Dizzy Wright, Hopsin, Jarren Benton all are clearly notable, and those are the only other artists on the roster. Might want to pay more attention and actually take five seconds to review it before voting. STATic message me! 04:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How important are LA Weekly, XXL (magazine), Complex (magazine), and Funk Volume, all with a plethora of sources. Perhaps they should come under closer scrutiny too, I have looked at some of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that LA Weekly, XXL and Complex are not notable or reliable sources? That is preposterous, they are all major publications. Their articles might not be in the best shape, but most magazines don't have incredible articles. Along with Funk Volume is a very clearly notable independent record label. STATic message me! 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that the articles about them may not meet WP:NMAG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is just a lack of WP:BEFORE again I guess. Even if they were not notable for their own articles, that does not make them significant reliable sources (along with HipHopDX, AllMusic and DJBooth.net), which are all considered significant reliable sources (WP:ALBUM/REVSIT) when it comes to music. So again, the significant coverage in well-known third party reliable sources is there. STATic message me! 16:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets look at your claims of sources discussing Swizzz. allmusic, [7] [8]. Makes a joke of your claim, doesn't discuss anyone, let alone Swizz. Its just a listing. All it does is verify he was featured on some tracks. Complex, [9], just a reblogging of a blog reposting Funk Volumes video, not reliable and not independent. Doesn't discuss Swizz, just a passing mention, "For "Funk Volume 2012," he brings along Dizzy Wright and SwizZz for a little something to warm up fans before heading in to the new year". DJBooth. Not reliable. Their staff reviews are but not everything on their site is. Just a paragraph announcing a single, not substantial. HipHopDX. [10], coverage of Hopsin, him talking about himself with only a passing mention of Swizzz, my label-mat is going to be on the tour. [11]. A song with no discussing Swizzz. [12], The title gives us a clue. "Hopsin & Dizzy Wright Featured". Passing mention of Swizzz, "SwizZz is also working on his next project", that's it. [13], just a posting of a song. [14], a short review. Going on theres similar. Coverage about others that merely mentions him. Reposts of videos.
One short hiphopdx review is not enough. The next best of a bad bunch is the LA Weekly piece but even that does not have substantial coverage of Swizzz. Half a paragraph on him, a paragraph on a joint mixtape focusing on Hopsin. Mentions are not indepth coverage.
The documentary? "Funk Volume is set to release a documentary entitled Independent Living: The Funk Volume Documentary." [15]. Nope, not independent.
The label? Dizzy Wright, Hopsin, Jarren Benton. That’s three, not many. And founded in 2009, a history of only a few years.
Might want to pay more attention and actually take five seconds to review it before commenting. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong again. Complex Magazine is not a blog, so what if they post news that begun from the FV website, that not does not mean anything. Most news begins from the artists website, FaceBook or Twitter for any musician. DJBooth.net is considered a reliable source for music articles at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, where is the discussion that says other stuff on their site is not? WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES is about sources for anything when it comes to music, not just for reviews, the sites that are not reliable for other information have notes indicating that. Two of the five HipHopDX sources significantly cover him, with a long paragraph written about his single in this source. He is also covered in depth in the LA Weekly piece along with Funk Volume, no matter how you wanna downplay it. Of course they are the one releasing the documentary, just like how any label releases an album, DVD, or a book, but they did not personally shoot it, but obviously they are going to be the ones that release and distribute it. XXL and the other sources that covered it are all not affiliated with Funk Volume in the slightest, so they are all independent third party reliable sources from the subject. Funk Volume is they are a notable independent hip hop label, with notable artists, and is notable in its own right, which is obvious by its article. So yes he does meet criteria #1, 4 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO as I have pointed out. STATic message me! 01:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wether or not you agree with my characterisation of the Complex post, the video is not independent and the post does not have non trivial coverage of Swizzz.
Just because some of a source is good for some things (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES was created to look at what sources are appropriate to use for album reviews) doesn't mean there is a blanket pass for all things hosted by them. EG. MTV also host mirror copies of wikipedia articles, clearly not a reliable source. Things should be looked at on a case by case basis.
You say Two of the five HipHopDX sources significantly cover him. You've linked to the one I called a short review. What's the second?
It looks like we are not going to agree on which are substantial and on some which are reliable. Maybe we should leave it there. You thing there is enough coverage. I think there is not enough coverage.
They are releasing the documentary so it's not independent. The other sources provide coverage of Hopsin and Wright, only mentioning Swizz in passing.
I don't deny Funk Volume are notable but that’s not what WP:MUSIC asks for. "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable"
So he doesn't meet #4 and 5 and we disagree on #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, wrong again. WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES and WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE were two different pages, which were then merged into one, but the sources that can ONLY be used for critical reviews are clearly labeled so if you view the page. So you are saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? You don't say. Point is, it is not a short review, and the other is the coverage of the tour/documentary, just because they only mention the most known/mainstream artists of FV in the title means nothing. They do not have the space to list them all in the title. Every single source I mentioned in my opening post is reliable, among others in the article and others available outside of the article, there is really no arguing against that. Again not true, every mention of the tour mentions every Funk Volume artist equally. If Wright and Hopsin were the headlining acts, it would be different, but SwizZz was also an equally headlining act on the tour, which is clear if you actually read the sources, rather than just their titles. If you actually look up the definition of "few" like I did, it means three or less, Funk Volume has been operating for five years, five > three in case you did not know. Along "with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable", see (Hopsin, Dizzy Wright, Jarren Benton, Kato). So again yes he meets #1, #4, and #5, you just do not understand WP:MUSICBIO, or common spelling for that matter. STATic message me! 05:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"every mention of the tour mentions every Funk Volume artist equally". What a complete and utter load of shit. With that bald faced lie I can't see any point in trying to discuss this with you. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, but it is true if you actually read the sources. STATic message me! 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete He is not quite notable yet. Though it is a nice article, maybe you should incubate it until he has a charting song/album or receives significant coverage. Koala15 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Koala15: Not that much coverage, but he does also meet points 4 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, also an update along with all the coverage mentioned above, which again includes LA Weekly (probably the most significant of them all), HipHopDX (5x), XXL Magazine (5x), Complex Magazine, DJBooth, and Respect, he was also significantly profiled in the newly released October/November issue of XXL the majority of the article is not printed here, but it is proof that it exists. The physical version profiles every member of the label. STATic message me! 00:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Koala15: Even if the article is primarily about FV, if you check the LA Weekly article, there are multiple paragraphs that discuss him, he is probably more discussed there then Jarren Benton or Dizzy Wright. Also at least two of the HipHopDX sources are only about him, as is the DJBooth source, which is a reliable source per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Not to mention as I stated in the above discussion he meets #4 and #5 of WP:MUSICBIO. #4 for "received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." He was a co-headliner on the The Funk Volume 2012 Tour which took place in North America, Australia and Europe and the respective documentary made about it. Coverage: XXL, HipHopDX, XXL, LA Weekly, HipHopSince87, The New Zealand Herald, BallerStatus, and #5 for releasing two albums/mixtapes (Haywire with Hopsin was also released for retail sale) on a "important indie label (Funk Volume) with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." Also he was discussed quite a bit in a recent HipHopDX x Hopsin interview. Im not saying he completly shatters any doubt of notability, but there is just enough to pass WP:GNG and definitly is enough to pass #4+5 of WP:MUSICBIO, if not also #1, which frankly there is enough coverage in reliable sources to meet #1 of WP:MUSICBIO too. STATic message me! 00:46, 2 November 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/Swizzz_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1071215404"