Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skerrit Bwoy

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 redirect to Major Lazer. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skerrit Bwoy[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)

Fails WP:GNG also concerns about sock puppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted this via AfC and still think he may scrape by GNG. However coverage is thin and totally concur with nom on UPE, so have no objection to it waiting for an uninvolved editor to create it. So um weak neutral? Star Mississippi 19:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in the event I am a hold up from a closing consensus, I'm fine with Redirect too Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently he's been the subject of another earlier documentary as well from an independent source, which I've added to the article and which is referenced in an anthropology textbook. That with the Vice Article, Miami New Times, etc., I'm surprised, but I think there's sufficient coverage here.Jahaza (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MNT article is basically local small talk and the Vice article isn't even written by staff - it's a contributor/freelancer. CUPIDICAE💕 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The staff vs. contributer/freelancer thing is not a relevant distinction except for certain publications like Forbes that run a self-publishing platform alongside their actual publication. AFAIK, Vice doesn't do that and like other magazines/web sites has both staff and freelance writers, but they're all writers for the publication. The news hook for the MNT article is the local concert, but it's a paper that gets read for its pop culture coverage beyond Miami.--Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is relevant because it's not subject to the publications editorial oversight and it's obvious it was a paid for spam piece. CUPIDICAE💕 17:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some evidence for that? You can't just assert that it's advertorial without any evidence?--Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jahaza. I didn't put my two cents in before. Among 6 references I saw at the time of nomination [1], there were: 2 "included in a list", 1 "interview (primary source)", and 1 "article that deals with them tangentially"; ~~but 2 articles that focus on them in depth~~. Seems the sourcing has improved since then. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, per CUPIDICAE. The 2 articles I referred to were Vice and MNT. They are of lesser value than I at first thought. _signed,Willondon (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created by Wizgirl1470 and Uptopclickllc, confirmed socks of each other. Note that Uptop Click provides "brand consultation, strategic market planning, Spotify marketing and Publicity" to Skerrit Bwoy, so a clear and undisclosed conflict of interest and a violation of paid-editing requirements. --Yamla (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if we don't think there should be a separate article on this guy, he's confirmed by sources like Rolling Stone[2] to have been been a member of Major Lazer and rather than deleting, some of the info should be merged there and the article redirected.Jahaza (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Major Laser seems the best. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per my earlier analysis and Oaktree. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we are serious about undisclosed paid editing being against policy (as well as the ToU) then we simply can't allow this page to stand. SpinningSpark 10:47, 27 April 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.