Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephixa

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 March 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ephixa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, no (or very few) reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICBIO + seems like a promotional article. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has released several songs (including singles, remixes and albums) on the ever-growing and popular Monstercat record label, I believe this does not make him fail WP:MUSICBIO and the page will soon get more reliable sources User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2016 (ACDT)

Comment: Which one of the twelve criteria does your claim meets? There's no chart of any single or album (for #2), Monstercat is not a label with many notable performers (for #5), the page was created one year ago and the musician is active since 2007 but still no reliable sources (for #1, #4) - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am refering to #5. Although you said that Monstercat is not notable, I'd say it very much is, as it has several notable performers, some later singed to larger record labels like OWSLA (Notably Marshmello & Slushii). It comes down to who you would define 'notable', maybe someone who is easily recognisable, made it in the top charts or someone who has had tens or hundreds of millions of views on Youtube. Monstercat probably isn't a 'major' record label, but it is an important indie label, with it having a history since 2011, having roster of 72 musicians in the 2016 roster alone and has featured many big names or notable artists such as Seven Lions, Marshmello, Vicetone, Timmy Trumpet, Slushii, San Holo, Pegboard Nerds, Tristam, Jauz, Excision, Aero Chord, SCNDL, Project 46 & Krewella. I belive this makes Monstercat fit the criteria and more importantly, make Ephixa a Notable Artist along side his ever growing fanbase, with James having over 400,000 Youtube Subscribers, over 60,000 Soundcloud followers and over 25,000 twitter followers. - User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2016

Comment: And what about releasing two or more albums? I don't think he released a full-length album under Monstercat, it says self-released in the discography section. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's released two EPs (Matches Remixes EP) & Some Wobbles EP), he has been featured on the Monstercat 5 year anniversary album and has songs released in the following main Monstercat albums: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005,006,007 & 009. He has also been in Going Quantums Hello? Remix EP which was released on Monstercat. He has also released 9 singles on monstercat, all of which has been featured in the albums listed above. I'm sure he has released on Monstercat enough for him to pass #5. Just a quick catch up, I put Some Wobble EP as self released because Ephixa listed it on his website, he doesn't list any songs or EPs he has released on Monstercat on his website. After a quick google search, I have changed this to be correct, which it is released my Monstercat. . - User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (ACDT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, your claim to its notability is hyperbole. It's not even close to meeting the criterion and the closing admin will know what to do. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of any debate about whether anything here passes an WP:NMUSIC criterion or not, a person does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because the article claims passage of an NMUSIC criterion: he gets an article only if and when he's the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. The NMUSIC criteria clarify the kinds of things that are accepted as valid claims of notability if they're supported by proper sourcing, but they do not hand the article an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion has been unsourcedly claimed. Out of 36 "sources" in this article, not a single one of them is a valid one — it's almost all Reddit threads and YouTube videos and his own social networking profiles, with no evidence of real media coverage shown at all. No prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can source it better than this — but regardless of what NMUSIC criterion an article claims to satisfy, NMUSIC is still not passed until reliable sources are carrying that claim past GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass the WP:MUSIC criteria. Karst (talk) 11:34, 2 December 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.