Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$teven Cannon

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

$teven Cannon[edit]

[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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. Not finding independent coverage or notability for this artist outside of their association with their childhood friend, Lil Xan, which is mostly passing mentions. Sources provided are not considered WP:RS. 5 are to a media company named Lyrical Lemonade (a company/blog that produced videos for the artist and Lil Xan), 1 to an interview on Genius, a passing mention on hiphopdx, and an interview posted on an apparel company's website. The performer's YouTube page also only has 1 video with over 500k views. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of articles, interviews and videos produced by Genius. Verified commentary from musicians fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy. Per the "genius is not considered a reliable source" link you attached.

They are only speaking about their lyric submissions, this is not produced by the musician nor a lyric submission.

HipHopDX is writing about HIS SONG, they mention $teven Cannon's name only a quantity of 3 less times than they mention Lil Xan.

Lyrical Lemonade did not produce SEVERAL VIDEOS for the artist. That is a lie, Lyrical Lemonade produced 1 video years prior, and their blog is ran by separate people. That's like saying because Hulu published a show about an artist now they cannot cover them in a documentary in order for it to be independent. That is absurd....

Song views ARE NOT an eligibility factor in determining notability.

Officialangrydub (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above a vote or not? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my vote is for KEEP, despite the bureaucracy of Wikipedians who wish to band together and discredit an obviously reliable music news source. Officialangrydub (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX is writing about HIS SONG, they mention $teven Cannon's name only a quantity of 3 less times than they mention Lil Xan. The article is centered around Lil Xan and they mention Cannon once (and not in a positive way).

Song views ARE NOT an eligibility factor in determining notability. In of themselves, no. Views are however useful in understanding how popular a person may be. As an example, if someone has multiple videos with 100m+ views it's much more likely that they're notable.

Regarding Lyrical Lemonade, it's a website owned by video director / videographer, Cole Bennett. Even if they only produced one video they are still a blog (as you mentioned) and have a connection with the person that they're writing about. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with positive or negative context. Plenty of mass murderers and rapists with Wikipedia pages....

By your definition of a blog, then ABC is a blog.. More opinionated nonsense. Officialangrydub (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you're focusing on the wrong points here. You also called Lyrical Lemonade a blog, but it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, as was explained to you on your talk page by another editor. If this person is as notable as you claim him to be then find non-trivial mentions from any source listed on WP:RS/P and add them to the article. That would be far more constructive than you comparing Lyrical Lemonade to the larger news websites. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that there are several other people named Steven Cannon (without that oh so hype dollar sign). As noted by the previous editors, this guy is only visible in his own self-upload and social media services and has not been noticed by anyone in the reliable music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So one of the biggest Hip Hop platforms is not a reliable music media source. LOL, your bias is clearly showing. Officialangrydub (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX is indeed a reliable source but this discussion is not about them. The discussion is about Mr. Cannon who was mentioned very briefly in a HipHopDX article that was about someone else. I was once mentioned in a city newspaper because I had done some volunteer work, but that doesn't make me notable just because that newspaper is a reliable source. Meanwhile, LOLing and accusing people of bias and opinionated nonsense might make you feel like you achieved a victory, but Mr. Cannon's lack of notability is the real opponent that you need to defeat. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a news article once is entirely different from having songs with millions of streams, being featured on Lyrical Lemonade, and this arist's overall situation.

The issue is perceived notability. While in a way I guess I was comparing LL to "major" news sites, in reality I was just showing you guys that the eligibility factors you guys use to determine reliability of them as a source in comparison to other sources is very inconsistent at best. There's just no factual, non-opiniated reason as to why Lyrical Lemonade isn't a reliable source.. Officialangrydub (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, streams can be bought, so we can't use them for reliability purposes here. They aren't audited like newspaper circulation or Nielsen ratings are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Harvard Crimson is about the best non-Wordpress site I find, and it's not much for sourcing. Rest is as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again more opinionated nonsense, since when is the source code of a website a determination in reliability.

According to your standards Time Magazine, CNN, The Rolling Stone, Microsoft News, Vogue, New York Times, The White House, New York Post, and CBS are all unreliable sources now correct? Officialangrydub (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are reliable sources, the Harvard Crimson is a student newspaper, we generally don't hold those to the same standard as the New York Times. Not sure what you're arguing about, it's all listed here [1]. Go have a read. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Little usable coverage in the music press, let alone significant coverage. As above, YouTube views are not a factor in notability, as they are an unreliable metric that can be gamed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had already mentioned notability issues on the talk page and previously supported PROD raised by the nominator, which I gather ended up being contested. More time has passed, and there is still no support WP:SINGER or WP:GNG with sources that are verifiable WP:VERIFY. Despite the original editor's suggestions of bias, the criteria for verifiability are quite clear; in the case of Lyrical Lemonade we are dealing with WP:NEWSBLOG at best. It does not mean that the source is not useful or that it is completely unreliable; it means that for the purpose of verifying claims of notability, it is not sufficient on its own. At the risk of sounding repetitive, let me outline four major issues that challenge its reliability and verifiability: 1) the tone of articles/posts indicates these are primarily opinion entries that might serve a specific audience to be used as a quick reference and/or update regarding featured artists; 2) there is no editorial team mentioned anywhere on the website, which indicates lack of editorial oversight, and there is no clear description of the publication and its goals or an editorial mission statement; 3) the website relies heavily on videos which often form the core content, a reliability challenge in and of itself per WP:VIDEOLINK 4) contact links only list the following: Music Submissions, Customer Service, and Brand partnerships/sponsorships. This is all to say: if the source in question was used to support a short statement made in an article on verifiably notable artist, then it might raise some eyebrows but would likely not be ferociously contested; as the main source establishing notability of a BLP, however, it is simply not enough.Ppt91 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other "sort of" sources that aren't blogs or streaming sites are the Daily Mail and Newsweek, both non-RS. There just isn't anything out there about this person. Never had a charted single, no critical notice at all it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2023 (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.