Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvester Rivers

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. I can't see that there is consensus to say that the added source is outweighing the previous deletion criteria. The keep vote added after the relist reinforces that the sourcing doesn't pass muster and I'm afraid that we don't yet a consensus that a volume of poor sources can be substituted for a couple of decent ones. Close enough I'm happy engage on my talk page if better sourcing emerges. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Rivers[edit]

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

Article which only contains primary or non reliable sources, preliminary searches bring up no sources. Therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not to mention the articles looks to be a poorly cut and pasted of a previous version perhap deleted from before. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Practically no reliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find a few mentions on Google books but nothing significant enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some of the included "refereces" in the article don't even mention the artist. There is not enough in depth independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been edited to satisfy reliable sources and therefore satisfy WP:NMUSIC. I am the subject of the article and new to Wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Riversco (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read reliable sources as almost all sources in the article are not reliable as per Wikipedia standards. All the references in the article are either social media type pages or simple listing pages. One of the references only leads to a search engine. We generally require that the media or scholars have written about the subject before we consider it notable.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me as I am a newcomer. Sylvester Rivers is mentioned several times in existing Wikipedia articles and several Sylvester Rivers works have their own separate Wikipedia articles. Knowing that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for itself, I referenced original sources that were already accepted by Wikipedia, thinking that was safe. The main source used for both credits and chart positions was allmusic.com, which is one of the most commonly used and authoritative sources for articles on people in the recording industry and a recognized source by the U.S. Library of Congress. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the American organization that certifies Gold and Platinum sales and is therefore the most reliable authority on the subject. The RIAA link referenced was used to verify claims of Gold or Platinum status and should have linked directly to the song in question, not the search main page. This can be corrected. Billboard.com, which was referenced, is considered the recording industry bible in charting and the New York Times was referenced, as well. Discogs.com is considered an industry authority and the largest online database of electronic music releases, and of releases on vinyl media. None of the references were to social media. I read reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (music) and the article seems to conform, e.g., there are many Gold records that can be verified, but I may have missed something. I am the subject of the article and new to Wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Riversco (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all of those links you have supplied only serve to prove that you have some credits, nothing you have linked talks about YOU which what we need to have an article meet inclusion criteria. We need published media coverage on you as a person, not just a list of your works. The New York Times listing is just that a listing it does nothing towards the WP:GNG threshold.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Mcmatter, for your help. In response to your comments, I added published book references to the article. Also, Sylvester Rivers is the composer and co-writer of the title song of the Michael Henderson album, “In the Night Time,” certified Gold by the RIAA and in the top 10 in two of the Billboard Charts plus in the top 40 in two other Billboard Charts. This should conform to the WP:NMUSIC notable composition guidelines for composers and lyricists. Again, thanks for bearing with me, the new fellow. Riversco (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that no one has mentioned conflict of interest since the subject of the article is the one editing it, and that user only came onto WP on April 26, presumably in response to the AfD. User also has solicited help [1], which in itself isn't necessarily bad but does increase the conflict of interest appearance. LaMona (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Conflict of interest is of no concern in this discussion, which should center on WP:Notability. I applaud the editors who did not bring up this matter but who attempted to instruct this new editor. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: can we have a more detailed analysis of the purported reliable sourced added after the AFD please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on volume of work listed at AllMusic. The other references are poor at best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2015 (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.