Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Hendrix

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. A request at the last relist asked for more views on drafting, but none were given. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Hendrix[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)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Started in 2020 and I see no charted music, albums release on major record labels, or significant coverage. There is a good article in The Source but one article is not enough to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a reluctant vote because the rapper surely has an overactive hype team swamping the internet with promotional junk like how he's "taking over" (e.g. [1]). But he has gotten some real notice from reliable magazines, including The Source (already cited), which contrary to the nominator's statement, is not the only one out there and is instead just the only one currently in the article. Here are some more appearances in the reliable or semi-reliable music media: ~~[2]~~, [3]; while the collab with Levi Zadoff has gotten a fair amount of attention: [4], [5], [6], [7]. It's quite early in his career and coverage is limited to just a couple of releases, but he may have enough for a stub article here under a lenient reading of WP:SIGCOV. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources you link to are clearly marked as being written by a publicist. The rest is about a collab and not in-depth about the subject of this page. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the vote more carefully. I said the first link was unreliable hype, and described the second as "semi-reliable" and it is now dead regardless. I don't think you're correct about the collab-related sources not covering Dead Hendrix, but my vote is a reluctant "Weak Keep" anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you wrote carefully. The problem is that I did not state clearly what I meant and apologize for such. I was referring to the first two sources that you stated were reliable (one of which you stated semi-reliable). Both links are working and both were written by publicists. Hope that clarifies.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage, I've tried to find mentions in sources here [8] but nothing else comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep per Doomsdayer. I think the coverage is just about enough to justify the stub. NotAGenious (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the coverage that you feel shows notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source article is certainly good, but the collab articles (esp. 5, 6, 7) look convincing, as they are non-trivial, more than Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates. But, if needed we can send back to draft, as coverage can indeed be further developed overtime. NotAGenious (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. This strikes me as a bit of a WP:TOOSOON case, but one for which future developments lending to notability are at least plausible. BD2412 T 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as was the case until recently. This is no reflection on NotAGenious, as there is slim credibility in some of the sources provided, however I concur with concerns around the origin of some of the source material. I am also not seeing how this is passing WP:MUSICBIO at present. Sending back to draft not only affords a little more time to see if stronger references surface, but also respects the weak keeps as the article isn't deleted outright. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 November 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.