Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katfyr

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 as the keep arguments failed to establish notability via multiple reliable sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katfyr[edit]

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

I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion but that tag was removed. Now taking it to AfD because the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contesting the Proposed Deletion:

Please note that I have addressed the concerns by Meatsgain about not having many reliable sources. Initially, the article had only 4 cited source at the time that it was moved into this board (for deletion within 1 week), and as a response I have added 5 new sources including 3 from the truly notable sites beatport.com and anime-expo.org, and this has been done to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1. Note that this artist falls within a specialized market and subculture, and therefore some of the sites offering reviews are also specialized and not well known. The inclusion of the well known music distributor "Beatport" and the anime/cultural exposition organization "Anime-Expo", and offering a total of 9 unbiased references should provide enough evidence about the validity of this artist. Nevertheless, thank you for allowing this improvement. pbigio (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, to meet WP:MUSICBIO #5, I have included notable mention of Katfyr's multiple releases with major music labels in the EDM industry including Armada Music, UKF Music, Hypnotic Records, and FiXT_Music. I will continue working on this page during the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by pbigio (talk • contribs) 220:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Further additions" - Contesting the Proposed Deletion: Please note that I have added more notability items, including that the artist has made multiple releases, over 18 singles or EPs, via the notable electronic music distribution site Beatport. I have also added information about the artists' nationality, instruments used, and other biographical facts.pbigio (talk) 3:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Addressing addition of more reliable sources for notability and more attributes of notability": At this point I clarify that for Katfyr notability, as per WP:MUSICBIO, has been addressed by including mention notable work along with reliable sources that have been added (including beatport.com, armadamusic.com, ukf.com, and the website and youtube page for the company PreSonus Studio One. Examples of notable work added include his work with award winning Emma Hewitt and then releasing the associated remixes through Armada Music. The reliable source for this is the links to the Beatport music distribution website. This aspect of notability occurs twice, first with Emma Hewitt's Foolish Boy and then with the song "Rewind." Another example of notable work include the fact that Katfyr was able to reach position number 1 in the Beatport Dubstep Charts in May 2014 with his original song "Lose Control", which meets WP:MUSICBIO #7. For this point, I have also included more reliable sources have been added since the first one was simply a website that tracks Beatport charts, in addition mention has been added to the website for the company that makes PreSonus Studio One which includes many links to videos and other articles which also mention the fact that Katfyr did indeed reach position number 1 on the dubstep charts in Beatport. Another example of notability, which meets WP:MUSICBIO #10 for inclusion in a notable compilation, I have added the work Katfyr did in two music compilations by World-Touring band Celldweller, and released through the well known record label FiXT_Music. Lastly, there has been the addition of a full discography which shows at least 18 different releases that are present on the Beatport.com website. pbigio (talk) 8:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sorry because I have invested interest in this article and done some cleanup editing. I have searched online to find better mainstream sources to no avail. I even located Metal Life Magazine because the only source provided (as for others) for the recent addition of a link with Katfyr to 'Bobbie and Neko Heavygrinder' is a YouTube video. I have updated the source to the interview page in the mazgazine in August 2015, read the print article and listened to the associated youtube video (twice). This resulted in my placing a 'failed verification' tag on the article. Entertaining about the wasp but not even the print article provides a hint about Katfyr or in the almost nine minutes of Youtube. Further Beatport is just an online music store, which of course sells music online. It is in their self-interest to promote anyone they are selling, including naming an artist as in 'position number 1' for their sales. Multiple citations are for Beatport. PreSonus Studio One, our article with its own problems, does not mention Katfyr at all. Lastly, none of the Discography is sourced and I am doing no further investigation. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the few issues raised above by user "Fylbecatuloss": In this case the user is stating that she/he has invested interest in this article but it is unlikely the interest is electronic dance music due to the user's lack of understanding of the high relevance of the Beatport charts, or the validity of Beatport as a reference. Please note that I simply use Beatport as a reference to show a valid link to the record labels, as this proves that it is a fact that the artist complies with notability requirement WP:MUSICBIO #7 and WP:MUSICBIO #10. Furthermore, all record labels listed, to meet requirement WP:MUSICBIO #5 do not have to necessarily be linked to the Beatport website, and I could simply add direct links to the label website. In addition, at this point, the user Fylbecatulos may be simply upset about the first interview that I added to show that Katfyr is now working with Heavygrinder, because the interview was not clear enough. However I have corrected and added a more detailed interview. In either case, this small section which is upsetting this user, can simply be edited out and the user should not have added these points as reasons for deleting the entire article, or shine light on the other sources. At this point, I'm afraid that this user will be creating further bias by going after the other points that I have clearly addressed here. For this reason, I want it to be noted that I consider this user's post on this page to be completely off topic and could have been addressed as a correction to the article. I believe marking the article for deletion was an initially hostile opinion by one user and this is now simply spreading to create negative opinions on other users. I request for this process to be completed now as my points have been raised and I have addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1, #5, #7 and #10 and the only user interested in this article to be deleted has only addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1. Furthermore, in over 4 days no one else has taken the time to validly contest the notability points I have addressed. I consider this process starting to be unfair. I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for over 10 years and the posts I have added have always been improved by other users, rather than contested and put to shame, and this is the experience that I believe was the original idea for users within Wikipedia, to help build a productive community, not to attack other people's efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.38.98 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Adding signature for the post above: pbigio (talk) 9:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment further: Ignoring the bad faith assumptions written about me with grace and peace, I want to make one further comment. A major problem with the section about Neko and the infobox and in the article itself is: the only name used for the artist and the title is "Katfyr'. The article and video I tagged as failed verification certainly names 'Neko' but nowhere do they say this is an alias for Katfyr. Further confusing is the birth name JayJay. So we have all these names and aliases lacking proof that they are indeed one and the same artist. This is one reason reliable sourcing is so important in order for an article to be accepted that is a Biography of a living person. Deciding something is true just because you assure us that it is without WP:Reliable Sources is WP:Original Research. I have a request on my talk page now from a professional writer that can't get his Biographical article published because of the pushback over sources. It is nothing personal. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 23:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the new issues raised above by user "Fylbecatuloss": As expected the conversation here goes on with the initial unfair base and negative connotation, adding additional critics to the article itself as opposed to helping improve the article which is the way Wikipedia was originally designed to be used. Nevertheless, I have decided to delete the section that is being contested by this user along with any references to Heavygrinder as a group. I'm doing this despite knowing that the user does not understand the market of independent electronic music artists and merely stating the sources are not reliable without establish a solid frame of reference, proof or substance to this or any other claim.Pbigio (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pbigio, let's remain civil here. The problem I see with the page, outside of what Fylbecatulous noted, is that while the page appears to have more than enough references to verify the page's content, most are unreliable. Of the page's 38 references, only 3 are somewhat reliable and detail Katfyr. The rest are either unreliable, blogs, mention the subject in passing, or do not cover the subject at all. The sources that are reliable include:

Soundista
Spot on Track
DJoy Tech

The 3 sources listed above however, is not enough to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the comment raised by user Meatsgains": Just for the record, user Meatsgains had originally marked the page for speedy deletion and mentioned that the article contained unreliable sources. At that time one of the sources was in fact soundista.com and the user is now mentioning this as a reliable source, thus further proving either lack of true interest or knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore, the user is claiming that only 3 of the references in this article are reliable, when I have addressed the reliability issue multiple times on this deletion board, including mentioning that Beatport, along with any Record Label website listed on my references are indeed reliable and show proof of the work. These sources are reliable and show that the artist has released records in highly notable record labels, multiple times, and collaborated with artists such as Emma Hewitt, Celldweller and Klaypex. I must reassure you, that I have gone beyond what's typically required from the Wikipedia community of users, and addressed multiple notability items as per WP:MUSICBIO.Pbigio (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want to get into details, I can get into details too. First, when I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion, there was one reliable source, ONE. Did you read what the speedy delete tag said? You're a new editor so my guess is no. A7 notes, "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."(bold emphasis by me) The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. And second, Beatport does not cover the subject what so ever. All Beatport can be used for is playing Katfy's music. I suggest you read through WP:RS before trying to "teach" me what is and is not reliable. Meatsgains (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NMUSIC; having a song at the top of a weekly genre-specific music chart probably meets "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style", Power~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also agree with the Keep decision by user Power~enwiki and adds an additional notability point. I must also mention it is easy for some users to focus too much on why they want to delete the article without really digging in or having the required understanding of the subject as pertaining to sub-culture music. In over a week of discussion the comments added for deletion fail to directly address the multiple points added for notability, and at the same time show lack of understanding of the sources added or why those were added for reference. The best example is the way the website Beatport is mentioned and disregarded as "unreliable". Statement such as “All Beatport can be used for is playing music,” further proves my point. I will make no further clarifications of what Beatport is, or how it is reliable and relevant in this case, because I have been clear enough in my explanations above and now the burden of proof falls on anyone arguing against the use of Beatport as directly used to sustain one of my multiple points addressing WP:MUSICBIO. In summary, multiple notability points, in addition to the one addressed by the addition of Beatport links, have been addressed by me and also by Power~enwiki already. In summary, the article is now much improved version from the original, and the comments added on this board give detail on how the respective notability point were addressed by following advice of other Wikipedia users who also helped improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbigio (talk • contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have tended to delete DJs who get half the media coverage he has. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines for Articles for Deletion make it clear that people arguing for deletion should also should make solid points. So far, in over 2 weeks we are getting no solid points against multiple points made for WP:BIO (Keep). It is likely that no one can truly make a true solid argument as to why this article must be deleted, or if so, at least they are totally failing to make the point on this board. Furthermore, the latest user are simply making blanket statements and in one case showing clear bias against what they consider "DJs". I have no further comments at this point, but it would be appropriate for admins to be moderated or otherwise counseled when clearly showing bias against a specific group.Pbigio (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Zero albums on any labels. A weekly genre chart does not equal most prominent representatives and we don't even have a weekly chart, beatport charts aren't like that. Nothing in WP:MUSIC is satisfied. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, another delete post is made making claim against this article for the 3rd week now without reading my previous posts. The user appears to state that that work performed with Klayton, Celldweller, and multiple releases through FiXT_Music, Armada Music and UKF are not notable. And then the user proceeds to vaguely repeat arguments already made other users and addressed by me in high detail 3 weeks ago. Yet again, it must be clarified that Katfyr is a sub-genre artist and the users here are simply holding him to the standards of mainstream music (full albums), not even mainstream EDM where it is common for artists to release notable work without having to release full albums (as it was in the late 90's).Pbigio (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-genre artist are held to the same standards as mainstream artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standards you are personally setting here perhaps, because you are refering to albums where this artist fulfills notability by recordings, which include singles as it is common for artists in the Dubstep and other EDM sub-genres. In your statement basically you are discounting his work based on your experience of what is considered notable for mainstream music, but WP:MUSICBIO allows for recordings and singles to be counted. Pbigio (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per delete rationales above, thanks to @Fylbecatulous: and others for doing the heavy lifting.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the last comment, I must repeat there has been no heavy lifting as I have addressed WP:MUSICBIO 1, 5, 7 and 10 and users are basically commenting without going deep into the discussion. Furthermore, the issue described by Fylbecatulous was addressed. Please make sure to read the responses before adding a comment here as if this was a voting contest.

Comment on last comment: Pbigio Regarding the resolved issue, I cannot discern how that is so: I still have three inline issue tags on the article in the last paragraph you amended. Your resolution just makes the problem worse and in any other article, that entire paragraph would be deleted as questionable speculation and unsupported conclusions. (The sources do not support it and your comments in that paragraph actually agree with that.) I have left it because it helps demonstrate the weakness of the foundation of this article. Fylbecatulous talk 19:04, 4 June 2017 (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.