Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Rocha

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. Sandstein 19:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Rocha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. All of the coverage is trivial - a paragraph at best. She clearly fails the other 11 criteria. MSJapan (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the coverage is the standard music blog/website stuff that involves sharing streams of new songs. It's essentially placement secured by PR agencies that send press releases to secure almost copy-and-paste style coverage. Bo Rocha is represented, I believe, by Inside Slash Out, who have some quite prominent clients that make it in such website's best interests to plug their newer artists. But it's irrelevant coverage and a case of WP:TOOSOON at best. KaisaL (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that the sources cited are not WP:INDEPENDENT and that there's been a WP:COI in the development of this article. Do you have any evidence to back these assertions? ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in three music magazines or their associate websites cited in article. These appear to be reliable sources. Although coverage is brief, it is not trivial and so meets WP:SIGCOV. Don't overthink things people, just follow the notability guidelines. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're trying to distinguish "brief" from "trivial" for purposes of determining notability, I don't think you're the best person to tell others not to overthink. I'd also point out that you deprodded this in the first place, so it's more about "make me right" than "follow the guidelines" - there are at least three other people who disagree with you. MSJapan (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I beleive there's an important difference between brief and trivial. Publication of a brief piece about the subject is potential evidence of notability. A trivial mention in a piece about another subject is not evidence of notability per WP:SIGCOV. This discussion is about consensus, not !vote counting. Your position here, which seems to be more about me personally and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE than deletion policy, does not help build consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that you don't understand the notability policy in the subject area, and repointing it as a "personal problem" isn't going to address that deficiency. An actually notable artist doesn't need to rely solely on subjective judgment of "brief" vs "trivial" in relation to coverage; there are 12 criteria for a reason, and failing 11 of them is a pretty strong indication of a lack of notability. The reason being, if an artist objectively charts or wins an award, or releases several albums on a major label, or get s a song in a film, they get more coverage as a result of that exposure. So going the other way around and saying that an artist is notable solely for getting (semantics aside) "minimal coverage", despite not having major releases, winning awards, getting on the charts, or anything else besides some hype is really a pretty weak argument. MSJapan (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting any of the 12 points in WP:NMUSIC establishes notability. Achieving this by meeting WP:GNG (point #1) makes a strong argument, in my opinion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the brief mentions met GNG, which they do not. MSJapan (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've called coverage "trivial". The only policy that I can think of that would exclude "trivial" coverage is the "trivial mention" discussed in WP:SIGCOV. I do not beleive that applies here as the sources are about the subject, not a mention-in-passing of the subject while covering something else. It's fine if we disagree about this but I don't really understand your position and would like to know what policies you are using to support it. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry but this is a far cry from passing GNG. Firstly all 3 sources are really brief - like the only information we get is that she is a singer who released this album. Out of the 5 sources in the article I found 2 are repeat links, so essentially we have 3 sources. Of of these 3, this is essentially rehashing Fader. The other coverage is in Vice. Bot the Fader and Vice coverage hardly talk about the person - in fact they are the kind of brief press releases (4-5 sentences long) which are sent out to various music websites. Searching more, I see similar content on other "online music sites". Its pretty clear these are press releases sent out en masse. The subject btw wouldn't pass WP:MUSICBIO by any chance. I also feel this is WP:TOOSOON considering that the subject only launched the first work in November 2015. Delete as fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a case of WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have it's own article here and it fails WP:MUSICBIO. There should be some claim of significance of the subject otherwise it should be speedly deleted under the criteria of A7. Ayub407^talk 08:28, 24 August 2016 (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.