Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party In Backyard (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party In Backyard[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)

The article notability as per WP:NMUSIC remains questionable. References include non-reliable sources like YouTube and Twitter. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Doomsdayer520, Boleyn, Caro7200, Walter Görlitz, Rorshacma, Dscotty26, Mottezen, Bungle, and JalenFolf: Invite and request for an independent review. Thank you.~Amkgp ✉ 01:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NMUSIC. Subject clearly passes criteria two, as they have released two singles that have charted on national music charts. The one Twitter citation is acceptable per WP:TWITTER, and that is the one primary source cited. I see no issue with keeping this article as a stub, IMO notability is evident. Mbdfar (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:TWITTER, the header says Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. How can you conclude its a reliable source always? ~Amkgp ✉ 18:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misunderstanding WP:TWITTER, I interpret it as "Self-published [by the subject] or questionable sources as sources on [the subject] themselves." Either way, the Twitter citation is only there to show that the subject is based in Eindhoven as described on their profile. That is not self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Mbdfar (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Admin and others, do have a look to previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party In Backyard which resulted delete. Mbdfaris the creator/author of the page. Views may be biased and non-neutral. ~Amkgp ✉ 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t stop him from being right. SK2242 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SK2242, If he/she is right no-body will stop. But if wrong anywhere or doubtful he/she can be stopped. ~Amkgp ✉ 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must be stopped! ;) Mbdfar (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original AfD discussion does not apply to this version of the article. There is no mention of Bitch Lasagna charting on the UK Official Charts (as that wasn't stated on the first version of the article), and the debate occurred before the release of the second charting single, "Mine All Day". Their arguments for deletion were correct with the information they were given, however, this iteration of the article addresses those concerns and adds updated information. Mbdfar (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist has charted and therefore passes WP:NMUSIC. SK2242 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SK2242. Subject passes criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO twice. Also the article should be moved to PartyInBackyard. Mottezen (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PewDiePie_vs_T-Series or, at the very least, PewDiePie. Are "Keep" editors treating this as a rote check off of chart criteria rather than reading the article or references, or at least examining the context? Does anyone truly believe the views/sales/charts etc. are a reflection of this producer's involvement rather than of the much publicized competition between PewDiePie and T Series to achieve the most views? It's true, it's "recorded" in the record books as a chart position for this producer, but the placement on the chart is a reflection of solicited social media numbers. Note that RS coverage (not referenced here, but verifiable in PewDiePie_vs_T-Series article) is about PewDiePie or the competition, with this subject receiving the obligatory tangental mention, bu the coverage is not ABOUT this subject here anymore than in the delete comments in the first ADF nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShelbyMarion, I think you raise a lot of valid points. You're right in that the subjects notability stems from his connection with PewDiePie, the media favors covering PewDiePie over the subject, and your statement "...the chart is a reflection of solicited social media numbers" is true to a point (though one could argue that its just how the music industry operates these days). If the subject had only charted with the first single from the PewDiePie_vs_T-Series competition then I surely would agree with your assessment, however, the fact that they charted again a year later shows a continued trend of mainstream success removed from that event. If his involvement in the songs was trivial, he would not share a lead credit. To me, his lack of media presence does not undermine his notability in the pop culture scene as proven by the mainstream music charts, and as supported by WP:MUSICBIO. Mbdfar (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get what you are saying about the second charting song, and it is indeed independent of the competition. I’m a bit troubled, though, that it, too, is connected with PewDiePie and it’s success is invariably tied to the Oprah effect that comes from a person celebrated among Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world. I’d feel a lot more confident voting KEEP if this subject showed some indication of notability outside of a connection to PewDiePie. As it stands, every met criteria—charts and coverage—is under the PewDiePie’s umberella, so to my mind this fails as a stand alone article per WP:NOTINHERIT, and a redirect is more appropriate. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was invited to participate above, but I will abstain because I do not know much about how to assess the notability of Internet personalities. However, I recommend considering WP:ENTERTAINER instead of just the requirements for musicians. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject passes NMUSIC, and is therefore notable. YouTube and Twitter are perfectly acceptable as primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PewDiePie_vs_T-Series as it appears NMUSIC does not apply: subject is a music producer, not the musician that would be covered by that. Regardless of type of involvement, this song that charted falls under the notability of PewDiePie, and there is not provide for automatic notability for each individual involved in producing a song, rather the group as a whole. Most of all, this lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Moreover, A “presumption” derived from specialized charts not listed at WP:GOODCHARTS and does not represent automatic notability with zero dedicated sourced. Reywas92^Talk 08:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail see how NMUSIC does not apply. The subject provided all the instrumentations for the tracks, and NMUSIC specifically covers instrumentalists. As stated above, Party In Backyard does have a lead credit for both of these singles as shown by both charts - notice how they are listed as being by Party In Backyard/PewDiePie". He was not only credited as producer. Because of this, the subject should derive the same notability from the singles that PewDiePie would. Mbdfar (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NMUSIC Wm335td (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2020 (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.