Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dax (Rapper)

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. I'm going with keep based on some of the coverage presented by User:HumanxAnthro. Please improve the article and if concerns still linger, feel free to renominate to AfD. Missvain (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dax (Rapper)[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)

still not a notable rapper, despite the multiple attempts to create an article here, same as the last AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dax (rapper). YODADICAE👽 16:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"still not a notable rapper" Oh really? He's not a notable rapper? Did you do the essential research WP:BEFORE nominating this article? Look at all this WP:SIGCOV I found only with a single GNews search. Non-notable my booty. I will agree, however, that in its current state, the article is overly-dependent on Apple Music links as sources, but even then there's some independent sources being in the body. WP:SNOW close. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources? They were available last time too and were insufficient and they're paid for PR pieces and interviews. This isn't what a snow close is for. YODADICAE👽 16:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Interviews and pieces about songs and live performances of his work from independent sources ARE coverage. I'm aware paid pieces are an issue in journalism media of all topics, but please provide evidence the sources I provided were paid pieces. And don't give me that bologna that interviews from independent sources (magazines like XXL count under that field, you know) are "self-promotion". They wouldn't want to talk with the rapper if nobody cared about him. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not independent coverage and several of your sources barely say anything about Dax or are gossip rags. The standard for inclusion is not "mentioned a few times" or "been interviewed" it's significant, in depth and independent coverage. YODADICAE👽 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're the one who didn't read the sources. He is prominently covered in many of the sources I provided. These are not articles with "a few mentions". ~~You're flat out WP:GASLIGHTING at this point.~~ 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent. You haven't provided evidence they're not. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need I introduce you to WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA? I'm not gaslighting you, there's a reason half of these sources are considered to be unreliable per WP:RSN, and the fact that you included this in your assessment really establishes that you didn't bother to actual look at the sources themselves for what they are: a mix of PR puffery, interviews and paid for publications or passing mentions. YODADICAE👽 19:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, XXL, Hiphopdx, Complex and Respect (which is blacklisted) all accept pay for publishing without disclosing it as such. https://www.fiverr.com/natprivalova/write-rap-music-press-release-or-an-article-for-news-website-submission And this is a laughably far cry from anything meaningful. YODADICAE👽 19:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I never cited Respect as an example, ~~and (2) Mind reading WP:DNTL? Calling out when users spread misinfo is not a personal attack or an aspersion.~~ The sources are not passing mentions; ~~stop lying that they are.~~ His name wouldn't be in the title of most of these sources if they only mentioned the rapper in passing. The link you provided as evidence only gives a Fiverr link that doesn't tell me anything about these specific sources; any evidence that this rapper specifically has used the Fiverr page for these specific sources I provided? You know that just because these publications do PR articles for some articles doesn't mean they do it for all of them. "Half of these sources" are unreliable? Since when was Billboard, LA Weekly, Earmilk, Broadway World, Rolling Out, Telegram.com, The Source, HipHopDX, and Revolt (which makes up 95% of the examples) found to be unreliable sources? I will admit that I have seen HotNewHipHop questioned and am not familiar with ghgossip and Side Door, but those are only a tiny minority of the sources I provided. Also, the heck do you mean the Genius.com source "is a laughably far cry from anything meaningful"? It's a notable Youtuber personality who has admitted to having an opinion on a song by this rapper, plus it's by a staff writer of the source. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just linked you to why most of these aren't reliable and as far as Broadway World goes, no I don't see how a republished press release is an RS, nor listicles of "omg look what ur fave rapstar loves!", those lack the depth required. I'm not gonna keep going back and forth with you. Vote or don't, but your feelings are not policy and the fact of hte matter is that most of this is complete paid for puffery and unreliable. Other than the Billboard source, nothing here is meaningful, in depth or reliable and this has already been discussed in a previous AFD. YODADICAE👽 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"your feelings are not policy" Well, so much for not casting aspersions. None of what I said is based on feelings. You know most of the sources I provided weren't "a republished press release" or "omg look what ur fave rapstar loves!" lists. Main features about the rapper in LA Weekly and XXL, him being declared part of a Canadian rap scene by Ottawa Scene and a song being recognized by a Youtube personality is WP:SIGCOV. Plus I just explained to you why that link wasn't good enough. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I'm !voting to Keep but clean-up the article with better sources ~~and for the coordinator to reject the nominator's lies and lack of evidence.~~ 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, The Source is on my personal unreliable list, as evidenced by the fact that you can see from the fiverr page, as an example, that this is a paid for piece and yet, inexplicably lacks any such indication and doesn't even indicate whether it's a staffer or contributor, so I'm not sure why we should be expected to believe this is a top tier RS when they don't even disclose what is genuine journalism and paid for cruft. It brings into question their integrity. YODADICAE👽 21:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom . No significant coverege on RS : i see No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2021 (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.