Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kudasai (artist)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudasai (artist)

[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)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs. Unable to locate biographical information in reliable secondary sources. The article cites Lo-Fi Culture, which is a personal blog, and Earmilk, which uses unpaid writers to review user-submitted music. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a rookie Wikipedian and this is my article so I'll refrain from saying if it should stay or not. I added an extra source next to earmilk, which was mostly to show that it was released this year, but I guess Spotify verifies that anyways now that I think about it. I know myself that he is a prevalent artist, he has over half a million monthly listeners, but it's in a very niche scene, and neither interviews nor tours are really a thing. So I wouldn't be mad seeing this get deleted for those reasons. More or less just saying that he is most likely notable enough for at least remaining as a stub, but sources should be added to strengthen this. Official Dieborg (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two new sources added was to Spotify, and the other was a link to Music Existence, a website musicians submit music to for review, and where they can pay for sponsored posts and the promotion of new releases. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link with an itunes charting history if it helps in any way, plus a trivial link i found while searching. Did not know about that factor with music existence unfortunately. I found the exact same review on Original Rock which to means he either put it there too, or if original rock is reliable, that it could perhaps be validated. But I'm giving up my search for more sources. If the article lacks too much validation to simpy put a notability template, then I am for deletion. Moving it to my user page / drafts (im very confused how english wikipedia works sorry), in case he gains more notability in the future, would be very appreciated. Official Dieborg (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The EARMILK source is pretty in-depth. Is that site reliable? Mlb96 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say anything about the sites actual reliability, unpaid writers making user-submitted reviews doesn't seem too wrong to me. User-submitted would just mean someone asks to review that artist? Which to me means someone wants to know what a writer/music interested person thinks about the music and artist. It's not the same like the other ones where the artist could pay to get a short review. This is an in-depth review of an artist, that someone wished for a review on. To me that means notability. But I can't really find out how to see if the site itself is reliable, since I do respect that reliability is worth a lot more than assumptions. Official Dieborg (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that he meets WP:NMUSIC.-Xclusivzik (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 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.