Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black the Ripper

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 delete. MBisanz talk 15:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black the Ripper[edit]

Black the Ripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article on this subject was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black The Ripper. Are the sources now included sufficient to establish notability? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No they aren't. They include forums, YouTube, download sites, at least one advertising site (http://grimepedia.co.uk, which, despite calling itself a "wiki", is in fact nothing of the sort: it is a pay-for-an-advertising site which chooses to make its pages look like wiki pages.) Looking among the references I have not seen one independent reliable source. In fact, considering that this is a recreation of an article deleted following AfD, and it has a slightly different title to get round page-creation protection, I think FisherQueen has been remarkably generous in bringing it here rather than speedy-deleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm an awfully generous person. :) And there was one link, the MTV interview, which looked like it met WP:RS. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's wrong to limit a notability discussion to the sources included. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The MTV UK source is fine; a different writer interviewed him on another occassion [1], & they had him remake a 2pac track elsewhere [2]. Extended appearances on probably the premier urban station, the BBC's 1Xtra, are legion [3] [4][5][6][7] Here's the playlist account of one:
  • Black the Ripper 20 Bars Galore feat Chipmunk & Cookie
  • Black The Ripper Interview
  • Black the Ripper Look Around
  • Black The Ripper’s Classic :1997
  • 2Pac I Wonder If Heaven Got A Ghetto
  • Charlie Sloth’s Classic: 1998
  • DMX Slippin’
  • Fire In The Booth – Black The Ripper
Another show replays "a classic session". He was listed among "top names" when Pitchfork had a grime column [8], which is both a passing mention and significant. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoyRider (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would suggest that JoyRider reads WP:RS to see why those are not considered reliable independent sources. Also, I would point out to them that merely showing that something exists is not showing that it has significance or notability. If grimepedia were really a wiki, it would be rejected. As a pay site, it is also rejected. The forum part is also rejected. YouTube merely shows that someone exists. Amazon too is merely establishing existence - they will list almost anything. What we are after is totally independent sources that show that the subject is of note. The article claims various things. We need verifiable proof (WP:V) in the reliable independent sources I referred to. I agree with FisherQueen that there are claims to significance. But I don't feel they are proven. Peridon (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of what you say is true, but "as a pay site, it is also rejected" certainly is not, and I'm rather surprised that you would say that. Most of the best sources, such as books from major publishers and peer-reviewed academic articles, are not available for free. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make that clear - no, it's not like the pay to view academic sites. This is a "we will be able to create one for you for a small cost" site. Viewing is free, but you pay for your spot as I see it. If you don't have to pay, then it IS a wiki, and still rejected. It's user-supplied info. Not independent. That's why I reject this site. Peridon (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand now. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, are they allowed to put "Grime Wikipedia" on their site? Peridon (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Wikipedia" is trademarked (look at the bottom of any page), so no, they are not allowed to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've looked deeper over there, and I have found the 'add yourself page. I would now say that the 'small cost' only applies if you get them to set up your page. Otherwise, you do it yourself. It's a sort of wiki. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a wiki, but it's certainly not entitled to describe itself with a name including "Wikipedia". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message for an appropriate person over here. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I don't see how this artist meets any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO, and the additional sources are insufficient to establish that any of those criteria are met. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain how he does not meet musicbio #12, for instance. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question In what way does he meet #12? #12 says, 'Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.' There is an text interview at mtv.uk, but it doesn't look like that's an interview that was actually broadcast on MTV. Is there a different broadcast segment you were thinking of? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: It arguably meets criterion 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, based on a segment on MTV that can be seen in video form here (no longer available though). But I argue that this broadcast segment is not "substantial." More importantly, though, I simply don't think it meets WP:GNG, because I cannot find a single independent and reliable source outside the MTV thing, which is really just a brief interview and not much of a profile/bio on the subject. --Batard0 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Decent coverage in one Reliable Source - the MTV clip, I am assuming since it is not available, and the text - is not enough to meet WP:BASIC. And I think WP:MUSICBIO factor 12 is looking for something closer to a segment about the person on Behind the Music or a 20/20 (U.S. TV series) than a quick clip. I think it would need to the "featured subject" not just a guest. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2012 (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/Black_the_Ripper&oldid=1071341579"