Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman (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 delete. adequate consensus that the coverage is not sufficient DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this article follows WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC correctly, as it is accompanied by direct and reliable sources, as well as having additional chart information accredited to its name; it charted somewhere. So revoking this nomination of deletion would be appreciated. Thank you.

Infopage100 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indeed, follows WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC correctly. plenty of good sources. chart info etc. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the problem is iTunes and Beatport are not recognised charts, and being available on Amazon and YouTube isn't really proof of anything apart from existence. So once you take out all those references and all the blogs, what you're left with is a song that just scraped into a secondary chart in Belgium. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep The article needs serious paring down (really, a lot of those references are rubbish), but that's actually an entry in a Belgian national chart that's good enough for WP:NMUSIC - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok. There are 109 references. A lot of those references are Youtube links. Yet those YouTube links are only found beside remixes by the duo, which really don't have any significance to them. The rest of the links are good musical websites, found under the duo's music career, which are merely accompanied by a few iTunes and Beatport links; as those iTunes and Beatport links play a role of proof for the release itself. A USA Today article usually won't tell you precisely when the single, EP, album, etc. was released, whereas an outlet for the release is more likely to display that information, along with record label and record label catalogue info as well.

Infopage100 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected the false claim of charting in the discography. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete - Duffbeerforme points out that they made the lower reaches of the bubbling under charts, not the main charts. Given the paucity of WP:NMUSIC otherwise, this is not enough for me - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although there are 109 citations, I couldn't find one good citation which would offer indepth coverage. The band definitely fails GNG. (In fact the article content is for the most part "in x year they released y" repeating all over). The charting is actually a bubbling under chart which doesn't really pass NMUSIC. What pushes this towards a delete is that there is little to no reliable secondary coverage to base an article on per WP:WHYN. I also consider this a WP:TOOSOON case. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is my problem with the article, the vast majority of citations are simply to prove the existence of each single or remix. There's almost nothing to prove that any of these records are notable. Even the better sources don't really tell you very much – for example, their guest mix on BBC Radio 1 isn't that special: DJs from all over the world have contributed guest mixes on Radio 1 over the years, so the mix itself wasn't notable. And when you look at the track listing, six of the seven records they played were their own remixes, so in fact it was just a good form of self-publicity. When it comes down to it, the notability rests on a song that just scraped into the lower reaches of a secondary chart in Belgium, and little else. Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought the artist did chart officially, but I guess not. Though on Steve Angello's discog page it shows that the song, "Payback" with Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman charted on an official Belgium chart. So I think that page should be corrected as well.
To know what I'm talking about, see the page here: Steve Angello discography.
Infopage100 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians:
@Mburrell:, @Nikthestunned:, @XPanettaa:, @TheMagnificentist:, @Earflaps:, and anybody else, I need your help. This may not be an article that I have created, but it is an article that I really enjoy. When this article felt like a stub, I heavily updated it, creating most of its tables, and adding most of its 109 references; in so many words, I must admit that the article was poorly written. So don't let my strenuous effort die in vain. It would be a pain to see that be so; help out instead. If you can, pay forth a visit to the aforementioned article, and subsequently update it. Please. Thank you.
Infopage100 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there is some coverage in notable media, none of that coverage is in any way significant, consisting almost entirely of song announcements and passing mentions (basically the musician equivalent of press releases). 'Bubbling under' chart is not enough to establish notability. Nikthestunned 11:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These references are notable, so the page should stay a little while longer:
*http://edmspain.es/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-yves-v-daylight/

*http://edmidentity.com/2016/05/24/yves-v-daylight/

*http://daily-beat.com/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-x-steve-angello-payback-original-mix/

*http://www.musictimes.com/articles/57035/20151204/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-label-buce-records-single-running.htm

*https://ventsmagazine.com/2016/05/23/yves-v-dimitri-vangelis-wyman-bring-daylight%e2%80%8f/

Infopage100 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I also added this ref.

http://weraveyou.com/2016/04/21/steve-angello-dimitri-vangelis-wymans-anthem-payback-two-years-old/ Infopage100 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Infopage100, firstly, you have already voted so your second "keep" vote should be struck. Secondly, you say the references are notable, but most of them really aren't – Weraveyou and EDM Spain are blogs, while Daily Beat describes itself as a "global youth media company", whatever that means. EDM Identity is a company that promotes artists so its reviews may not be impartial. And lastly, all the references say are basically "Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman have released this record"... that isn't evidence of why they or the record are notable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dimitri_Vangelis_%26_Wyman_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137787945"