Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimi Cravity

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. Star Mississippi 23:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Cravity[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO under any criterion. Not a GNG pass either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the inclusion of "Believe" at number 37 on the Hot Christian Songs chart valid for notability? WP:MUSICBIO suggests that a chart position on a national chart is a point for notability, and Hot Christian Songs is listed as an "acceptable" chart on the chart notability page.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an acceptable chart for a mention in the article, yes, but it is not a country's national music chart. So no, not a notability pass per WP:MUSICBIO. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was, we still need RS to arrive at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep haven't done a full search yet but he does have an AllMusic bio here which shows that he was contracted to Universal Music as a songwriter. Regarding the charting as well as the Christian charts the most significant charting is position 11 on the billboard heatseekers chart which covers all music genres and is just below the main Billboards album chart, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage here, here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't access the AllMusic site through our vpn at work, this from Billboard is not extensive, but it's something. [1] Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything extra for this person. I don't think the three sources above are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. An examination of further sources on this article subject mentioned by Atlantic306 would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the nom, I am not sure my view will be enough to swing this from a quiet no consensus. But looking at the sources, there are four proposed.

There is no consensus on reliabilility of All Music [2] at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The piece is a short bio. If this was generated off a publicity drive it wouldn't be independent. I am not convinced it is significant. I don't believe this one counts towards SIGCOV.
[3] appears to be a Wordpress blog, and I am not familiar with it. However, it lists 4 staff writers which may speak to an editorial process. All the same, the review here does not come from a staff writer, although they have provided a number of the reviews and one might guess based on names that they could be related to a staff writer. I don't believe this meets SIGCOV threshold.
[4] Cross Rhythms is specialist in the sub culture, but reliable. Except that Stephen Curry's review there has a disclaimer: "The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms". That suggests a submitted review.
[5] I don't know this site, but there are a lot of reviews and effort has been taken over it. They don't describe their editorial poilciy, but I note that they tak review submissions: [6] saying "let us review your Music." If they only review aftter a review submission, then the review is not independent.

So in summary, I am not sure any of these count towards SIGCOV, but even if we let Cross Rhythms pass, we would not be in multiple territory. The fact is that anyone touring the Christian Music circuit will solicit and thus garner a few reviews in Christian music sites, but these are not the sources that demonstrate notability per WP:MUSICBIO. What we need is an independent publication that sat up and took notice. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with @Oaktree b: as all of the sources I provided are reliable sources. The three christian music sources are listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources and AllMusic is regarded as reliable by most music editors hence its inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Also. it no longer seems to have an entry at the perennial sources list. In any case the fact that the artist charted on a non-genre Billboard chart should give him some leeway in my opinion,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding WP:NMUSIC he clearly passes criteria 2 with a charting on a national music chart particularly one that is not genre specific. Also I don't see any mention that genre specific reliable sources should be ignored or not counted, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Music is still there. See WP:ALLMUSIC. No consensus on reliability doesn't mean it is unreliable, but those who advocate for it tend to argue that substantial reviews by staff writers are what count as notable. This is not a substantial review, and it appears to be by a singer and not a staff writer. Thus I don't think that one is notable. What I said is not all about the reliability or otherwise of the sites. I took the time to explain why I don't think those can be used for SIGCOV based on the specific reviews. MUSICBIO specified a country's national chart as being a determiner for a presumption of notability. Number 11 on a specialist chart for new and developing acts is not sufficient. But really what it comes down to is whether there is sufficient material to write an article about this artist. He has released two EPs in the last 10 years, and that is all. This does not look like a notable singer to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 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.