Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanco Caine

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. J04n(talk page) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanco Caine[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Claims of notability focus on an as-yet-unreleased mixtape. References are either user-contributed, apparent press releases, or trivial. As said mixtape will be dropping next month and article creator has some hope for public response, I suggest userfication rather than outright deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This artist is a successful recording artist from the Chicago Hip Hop scene, has achieved reputable media coverage in both regional and national magazines/blogs/online news portals such as Yahoo!, Fakeshore Drive (Chicago), The Hip Hop Weekly (brother publication to The Source Magazine) and The Hype Magazine. Please give me an opportunity to dig up some historical content from published sources which which change the landscape of the bio section. Thanks for all of the help and comments with this article to dateTheurbanlink (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the talk page: the Yahoo News source is user submitted material, the Fakeshoredrive piece is a mere 55 words introducing a music video (and thus trivial), and the HipHop Weekly and The Hype's clothing entries, well... I don't read hiphop magazines, and perhaps they do write in sheer layers of hype, but those things read a lot more like something written by the artist's promotional team than like uninvolved third party coverage. That leaves the Hype interview piece, for which only one question assumes that the interviewer had any knowledge of the artist at all, and which overall qualifies as "the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", stuff excluded from notability consideration per WP:BAND. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 23:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I review this article and peruse other artists pages I agree that perhaps I should take this out of article space and over to draft space. Although there are MANY artist articles with similar or less media coverage surrounding them, I don't want to create a sub-par article. Is there a way for me to take it out of the article space and back into draft mode rather than losing it altogether? I would appreciate that opportunity. Nat I understand that perhaps you do not read hip hop magazines and YES, there is a different flavor to the writing with those outlets. I would point out however, that the hip hop magazines ARE the bible for the global hip hop community and therefore have much more impact on the entertainment industry as a whole than would say Chicago Sun Times. Standard tier 1 media, i.e., WSJ, LA Times, Forbes, have almost zero importance in the hip hop world or urban music community at-large.

It is not my intention to disrespect anyone or their experience I would just humbly suggest that the editor's of Wikipedia expand their knowledge of what is important media coverage outside of the standard, Time, People, Rollingstone, etc. when classifying media status. Thank you for all your work Nat and attempts to assist me in finding more relevant outside resources.Theurbanlink (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not putting down the indicative value of The Hype or Hip Hop Weekly, but rather addressing the individual articles, which at least by sniff test appear to be press releases... and, doing further research, not without reason, as you can see the The Hype material here labeled as a press release. Wikipedia standards say that press releases, even when reposted or even reworked by significant sites, do not add to notability. A press release posted at Forbes.com would get the same treatment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for your patient explanations, they are much appreciated. I understand that press releases are not solid source documents now. I WOULD point out however, that press releases are how many media outlets get their information for articles and use those pieces as the editorial content for their stories. I as a writer, receive press release material from Associated Press, UPI, PRNewswire, etc., and if you see a syndicated story that has the insert (Associated Press), that is material from a press release and is utilized to syndicate stories across the globe with the same content. But as I said in a previous posting here, if there is a way to take the article back to the draft stage, I would be happy to flesh it out according to your great explanations so that it is a fit for Wikipedia. I want to do things right and not do anything to weaken the Wikipedia brand and I want to grow as a solid contributor to Wikipedia. I have no personal attachment to the article or person addressed within, I felt as a journalist, this person was worthy of coverage and inclusion and that his media coverage within the entertainment media community was notable enough...I was wrong. RespectfullyTheurbanlink (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, The Hype cannot be considered an independent source on Blanco Caine, because The Hype lists Caine as one of their "clients", on on-site banners that go to this page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - The original author indicates a willingness to improve this article which is not suitable for Wikipedia. Given the impending release of material that may generate some coverage, userfication seems appropriate in this instance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not userfy. Just like User:Jdobypr User:Theurbanlink is a PR account trying to use wikipedia for promotion. See [[1]] for Blanco Caine and [2] For Edubb, the other band this editor is trying to promote. See theurbanlink.net for the link to jdobypr. Blatant corporate spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pushed beyond my ability to WP:AGF and hereby withdraw my suggestion that this be userfied.-Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any potential sources that demonstrate notability. As has been pointed out the sources are all press releases which appear to have been written by Theurbanlink themselves: [3]. It's close to being G11 material to be honest. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NMUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2013 (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.