Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BabyJake

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Appears to meet WP:NMUSIC but not WP:GNG, but no agreement here on whether that is sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BabyJake[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

BabyJake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable at this time. Has an AllMusic bio written by one of their regular critics which is good, but otherwise everything I see is either interviews or likely unreliable sources (including Earmilk; my thoughts on that here). That the artist was signed to one of the world's biggest record labels would explain the amount of available coverage/promo, but that his new album was self-released and has received zero coverage makes me think that previous material was all bought by the label and doesn't ultimately mean much (and again, appears to be mostly unusable). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't the fact that he was signed to Republic Records establish his notability as an artist in itself? Whether or not his most recent release(s) are notable enough (I'll admit, they aren't culturally relevant enough to have their own pages), the page is on the artist, who has almost 2 million monthly Spotify listeners and 143 million on a single song. I don't feel articles should be deleted/moved out of the mainspace based on the subject's "current" relevance, when they have been relevant in the past and will likely be relevant in the future. There are hundreds of "one-hit wonders" that quality for their own Wikipedia pages, so I don't see why this one is any different. SaltieChips (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. ENWP doesn't tend to see much in Spotify listeners so I'm not sure how valuable a metric that is here. And there's also the problem which I've seen brought up before where those numbers aren't the most reliable because companies can pay for bots that stream the song automatically so the numbers are artificially inflated.
2. In my opinion, being signed to a major label shouldn't automatically qualify an artist as notable. Notability being able to be bought by big companies like that doesn't feel like the spirit of Wikipedia to me. I know WP:NMUSIC#5 exists and a lot of editors still stand by it, but frankly I've never cared for that argument, especially when made alone.
3. Other than the streaming numbers, I don't see anything that qualifies this song as a hit. It doesn't appear to have charted anywhere and the coverage one would expect for a hit song hasn't materialized. By some measures it would certainly be considered a hit, but not by the ones Wikipedia prefers.
4. My point about the recent releases was meant to demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED. There was some (unreliable and likely artificially gained) hype around one or two prior releases, but that it didn't continue more recently and looks unlikely to start up again suggests to me that it was temporary, and that would constitute a notability fail.
5. For what it's worth, I don't see a reason why moving this out of mainspace would be worth anything. I don't see anything that would help expand this further, nor do I foresee that material coming about in the future. If you have any redirect targets to suggest then I'm open to hearing and likely to support them, but I would not support draftification. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:SINGER#C5 (corrected) with two releases on Republic Records and additional releases on Universal Music Enterprises. Notability criteria is met, thus notability is presumed. There is no concern for WP:V given we have some sources to verify things. If concerns remain, please remove unverifiable information that is likely to be challenged, per WP:BLP. —siroχo 04:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, the nominator makes a pretty strong argument but participants here are advocating Keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NMUSICIAN: "One of the most prominent representatives of a notable style"? "Won or was nominated for a major music award"? "Had a single or album on a country's national music chart"? "Had a record certified gold or higher"? "Has won in a major music competition"? Nope. Wikipedia is not a music directory. -The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the source material about this subject, rather than "is a..." type arguments, would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:49, 19 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BabyJake&oldid=1172460840"