Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ortinel G

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. Sandstein 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ortinel G[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)

completely and utterly non notable rapper. all sources are paid for PR/blackhat SEO or outright unreliable. CUPIDICAE💕 14:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Notability is based on the coverage the individual gets within their professional setting. And for the individual based in this article is notable in the Australian Christian Hip Hop sphere. Also I don't think the sources are unreliable, I think they were just poorly cited. The references provided in the article meet the guidlines of references required and just needed to be correctly structured. Perth1991 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Perth1991: Hello. Can you point to which sources you believe are RS? Per my assessment (as seen below) not one of the sources meets the RS threshold. --Kbabej (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing moderator: Perth1991 is an SPA and has only been active today in editing this article. --Kbabej (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've removed the YouTube sources per WP:RSPYT. After removing those, there are 8 sources left in the article. Half of those are the subject's songs; the Wes Bredenhof source is a blog, and thus unreliable; there are two Free Press Info sources, which are just press releases; and finally, there is the Disrupt Magazine piece which is clearly a regurgitated press release (you can also pay to have an article written about you, as seen on their website here). Not one RS for this article, and when I did a before, it was just more of the same press release churnalism. --Kbabej (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverted your edits for the youtube links as according to WP:RSPYT you are allowed to link videos to verified youtube channels and the channel for the subject of this article is a verified offical artist channel thus making the citations to it reliable and valid. In reference to the articles blogs are reliable as it is a third party medium that has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Furthermore, the free press info source is not a press release as can be clearly seen that it has an author who wrote the article. Also, Disrupt magazine is also not a "regurgitated press release" because it also has a clear author and also we cannot claim that the subject of these article paid to have the article written. That is information that you and I do not have. Therefore putting speculations aside, the references used are deemed RS. Perth1991 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing his channel on YouTube is verified? It is an unverified account with less than 80 followers. Just putting "official" in your name on YouTube does not make it verified. --Kbabej (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about the name, The channel has a quaver musical symbol next to it that signifies this is an official youtube channel, which is how musical accounts are verified on youtube do your research on this. Perth1991 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perth1991 Before you go reverting people I suggest you read the link in question and you know, stick to one account. CUPIDICAE💕 16:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Disrupt magazine is also not a "regurgitated press release" because it also has a clear author and also we cannot claim that the subject of these article paid to have the article written. It is literally information I do have and I have posted it numerous times on various discussion boards here. It's not reliable and your attempt to push your way through is laughable. Unless, of course, you really think that a stock image of a random guy in a suit under the name "Thomas Philip" complete with a link to a random dude's insta named Ayush Mehta (who is an "online presence growth expert") is reliable...well, I have a bridge to sell you. CUPIDICAE💕 16:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see beyond speculations as to how that discredits this from being RS. The authors disrput magazine article's name is Thomas Phillip which is his government name, what does that have to do with the instagram account?? Perth1991 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. ok, it's clear you're either trolling or unwilling to look at the facts. CUPIDICAE💕 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been an established fact as to the provided references not being RS? Perth1991 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reliable source with signficant coverage, just press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Four non-charting singles. Nothing in my search helps it to meet WP:GNG and nothing to even imply WP:MUSICBIO. Likely (hopefully?) WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting discussion here so with extra caution I've searched multiple databases including Newsbank, Ebscohost and ProQuest, and found a single press release. Fails WP:GNG. Agree with Walter Görlitz: if Ortinel continues well then revisit creating a page in due course with suitable WP:RS; until then it is at best TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has 432 listeners on Spotify and no significant coverage to speak of. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable or significant coverage available. Also does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. MartinWilder (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2022 (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.