Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kay the Aquanaut

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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kay the Aquanaut[edit]

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

Musician fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you deliberately wasting people's time? Please familiarise yourself with WP:MUSICBIO, as well as WP:ATD, and this essay, particularly this passage: "Rather than putting the article on AfD, try expanding it. Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily." I've added a few more sources. Please stop recklessly nominating articles for deletion when you don't know anything about the subjects, aren't familiar with the actual notability criteria, and aren't willing to do the work to expand the articles. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that, in addition to meeting criterion #1 at WP:MUSICBIO, Kay the Aquanaut meets criterion #5, in that he has released three albums on Circle Into Square. CIS don't yet have a Wiki article, but they are notable on the basis of having mulitple notable artists in their roster, including Cars & Trains, Boy In Static, Keith Kenniff and Loden, and their sister relationship with Fake Four Inc. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sufficient to simply assert that a person meets WP:NMUSIC. Rather, reliable sources must be present to verify that the topic meets NMUSIC — and if they aren't, then an article can still be deleted no matter how much unsourced notability you claim the topic has. This article, as written, relies exclusively on deprecated sources such as blogs and student newspapers and his own Facebook page, and provides absolutely no legitimately sourced demonstration that he actually meets any of the NMUSIC criteria. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugsmag, The Sheaf, The Rooster, Pound Magazine, SYFFAL and Hip Hop Canada are reliable sources: not self-published, not lacking in editorial oversight, not unestablished. The subject therefore meets criterion #1 at WP:MUSICBIO. I didn't think it necessary to list the reliable sources here as they are already in the article. Your statement about the quality of the sources is false, and you did not comment on the argument that he also meets criterion #5 at WP:MUSICBIO. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of those sources are blogs (which are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia), and the one that isn't is a university student newspaper (which is also not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia). Furthermore, the article as written completely fails to even contain any substantive content about him at all — every single one of the aforementioned "sources" is just piled up one after the other to reference a single statement of his existence, without actually documenting anything about him or his career beyond that single sentence. So even if they were valid sources, which they're not, what they're being cited in isn't a proper encyclopedia article.

And as has already been noted elsewhere in this discussion, the assertion that Circle Into Square counts as a notable indie label is not supported by sourcing — and even if it were, the claim that he released material on it is unsourced. So you can say that he's released albums on a notable indie label all you like — but you've failed to reliably source that he's released albums on a notable indie label. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article is a stub. There are many stubs on Wikipedia. An article being a stub is not a reason to delete it. See WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. The article is obviously not a WP:PERMASTUB. 2) No, they aren't blogs (as in self-published, lacking editorial oversight). Are you just making this up or what? Ugsmag is one of the most established underground hip hop magazines, The Rooster is a local magazine published by a chain of lifestyle accessories shops in Western Canada, The Sheaf is a 102-year-old student newspaper (cite policy please on your claim that this is not a WP:RS), and Hip Hop Canada is a division of HipHopCanada Inc and one of the biggest hip hop sites in Canada, if not the biggest. 3) WP:MUSICBIO #5 states that an artist may be considered notable if he "Has released two or more albums on ... one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." I have listed Circle Into Square's notable artists above. 4) Uh, here's his entry on CIS, which is also in the actual article, FYI. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) A stub still has to actually make a credible claim of notability to be keepable; it is not entitled to stick around Wikipedia if all it does is assert that the person exists.

2) Yes, they are blogs. Most of them even say so right on their own "about us" pages. And as for student newspapers not being reliable sources, that's even written right into NMUSIC #1 itself, if you actually read the "except for" points. And just for the record, I even personally argued against its inclusion there, on the grounds that student newspapers aren't actually any less inherently reliable than commercial altweeklies are — but the consensus was established nonetheless, and thus has to be respected and maintained whether you or I personally like it that way or not.

3) You have to be able to properly demonstrate that the label is notable. It does not automatically inherit notability just because it has notable artists recording on it, if it is not itself the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to get past WP:CORP.

4) WP:PRIMARYSOURCES don't demonstrate notability. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Begging the question. And if notability is demonstrated, then it is clearly entitled to "stick around", unless it is a permastub with no hope for expansion, which it is not, as he is an active musician and the existing sources contain plenty of fodder for expansion (and BTW, the article does not only assert that the person exists, it also contains a full discography, some career history, and basic biographical information).

2) Whether something calls itself a "blog" is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is a blog (major newspapers have "blogs" too but they're not literally blogs). Ugsmag is not a blog. The Rooster is not a blog. Hip Hop Canada is not a blog. They are not self-published. They have editorial oversight. They are even commercial enterprises with paid staff. SYFFAL may be a borderline case. Fair enough on The Sheaf.

3) The label's notability is neither here nor there. See below.

4) The label's website? I'm not using it to demonstrate notability, I'm using it to proce that he's released "two or more albums" on the label, as you requested. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO, the subject has not received significant independent coverage in reliable sources. You might want to check the sources again, they are nearly all blogs, most of them are self-published and none of them have editorial oversight. Also does not meet criteria 5 of WP:MUSICBIO as there is zero indication that Circle Into Square is a notable indie label, their notability is not inherited by the artists on the label. STATic message me! 04:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Few if any of them are self-published and all of them have editorial oversight (possibly Ominocity is the exception). 2) WP:MUSICBIO #5 states that an artist may be considered notable if he "Has released two or more albums on ... one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." I have listed Circle Into Square's notable artists above. MUSICBIO #5 explicitly states that if an artist is a prominent presence on a notable indie label that they do inherit the label's notability. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO #5 explicitly states that if an artist is a prominent presence on a notable indie label that they do inherit the label's notability. Which is exactly the opposite of StaticVapor's point, which had to do with the label not inheriting notability from its artists. A notable artist can record on a label without automatically conferring notability on the label — the notability of the label depends on whether sources are available which are specifically about the label — and so the fact that other notable artists may have recorded on a label does not automatically make the label notable enough to make it an NMUSIC#5-satisfying label, if you cannot properly source the notability of the label. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO #5 has nothing to do with the notability of the label per se, it simply defines "important indie label" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". The roster of notable performers makes the label important (not notable in the technical Wiki sense), and an artist who has released two or more albums on such an "important" label meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #5 for notability. (Also, FYI, there are no specific notability criteria for record labels, and this a constant source of confusion and controversy. Check the archives.)- Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #5 doesn't pertain to the notability of record labels, no. However, a record label has to pass a notability guideline (the relevant one is WP:CORP) in order to be a record label that is notable enough to satisfy #5. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. MUSICBIO #5 makes no mention of the label's notability. It simply defines "important indie label" in relation to "notable artists". I have demonstrated that CIS has a roster of notable artists. I have thereby demonstrated that CIS fits the MUSICBIO definition of an "important indie label". I have demonstrated that Kay the Aquanaut has released "two or more albums" on this "important indie label". I have therefore demonstrated that Kay the Aquanaut meets MUSICBIO criterion #5 for notability. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the "about" section of every single source cited in the article, zero have a experienced editorial staff, or editorial staff at all for that matter, so do not kid yourself, most just say what they are about and promote themselves. Again, how can you assert that the label is notable or "important," if it lacks a Wikipedia article that asserts its importance. You just saying the same thing over and over again is not going to make it important. STATic message me! 06:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Did you miss these? Ugsmag, HipHopCanada. 2) Once more with feeling: MUSICBIO #5 defines an "important" (NB: not "notable") indie label as one with a roster of notable artists and a history of more than a few years. All I have to do to demonstrate that CIS is an important label is to demonstrate it meets these two criteria, which I have done. It follows from this that Kay the Aquanaut meets MUSICBIO #5 if he has released two or more albums on CIS, which he has, as I have also demonstrated. Following? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UGSMAG just says they have a "Staff", says nothing of an editor or being editorial, every blog or website obviously has a staff. Just looked up the editorial staff for HipHopCanda, it is borderline, but nothing to indicate they are professionals with years of experience, none have worked at any major publications before so no dice. Even if we did let HHC pass by as possibly reliable, does not mean that a single possibly reliable source would save the article. If you can even call it that, this might as well be a database entry at AllMusic, all it is is one line saying he is a rapper and then a list of his works. What is anyone going to learn by reading the article? Nothing. Back to #5, sorry still has not been demonstrated, notice how I am not the only one that disagrees. Still, trying to achieve a keep based off a single point of WP:MUSICBIO is not going to result in your preferred ending. It is pretty clear that the subject fails the most important point of WP:MUSICBIO (#1) and the WP:GNG at that. 06:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not every blog has a staff, most blogs are hosted on sites like Blogger and Wordpress and run by single individuals, with absolutely no editorial oversight or quality control. 'Blog' is an internet term with several distinct/overlapping meanings; some blogs are hosted on Blogger, some are established news sites with routine editorialisation, some are op-ed pieces in the Guardian. Ugsmag doesn't identify as a blog, it identifies as a magazine, it has a staff, and it's been an established indie hip hop magazine for nearly 15 years. The idea that it's unreliable--even the idea that pieces are published by contributors without any editorial oversight--just has no basis in common sense. Where in the policy does it state that editorial oversight must be maintained by people who have "worked at major publications"? Since it is unusual for someone to go from working at a major publication to working at a minor publication, such a policy would in effect be a MASSIVE mainstream/commercial bias and rule out the encyclopedia's coverage of underground music altogether. Sources must, obviously, be appropriate to the material being sourced; underground hip hop information is ONLY going to be sourced from publications that cover underground hip hop. If this is disallowed, then underground hip hop cannot be included in Wikipedia. These publications are not going to have editorial boards populated by seasoned veterans of major media outlets. The point about editorial oversight at WP:RS is that we can be confident that the material at the source is not published by some random person whose word we have no reason to believe. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did some searching. Apart from specialized industry publications where the reliability is difficult to ascertain, I couldn't find any major articles or other types of sources discussing the artist. Gm545 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not surprising for an underground artist though. Specialised industry publications are where this music gets covered. What sort of sources are you looking for discussing underground hip hop? The New York Times? Any comment on MUSICBIO #5? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, your assertion is that Circle into Square is one of the "more important" indie labels (as required by WP:MUSICBIO#5). I'd change my opinion if I could see some independent sources that demonstrate it. It wouldn't require the New York Times but I'd expect to see several non-trade publications discuss the label with more than a passing mention if it were important. Gm545 (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:MUSICBIO explicitly defines "important" in terms of a roster of notable artists and a history of more than a few years. It explictly states that the concept of "important" is not identical with the concept of "notable". So for an indie record label to be notable, yes, it must be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, but for it to be important it must only have a roster of notable artists and a history of more than a few years. The definition is very clearly stated. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A record label still has to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in order to be "important" enough to meet that criterion. The difference in definition is because it is possible for a notable record label to still not be "important" enough to meet the criterion even if it does have an article — but a record label can never meet the criterion if it isn't "notable" in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? It's not there in the guidelines. In fact it's conspicuously absent given that both the concepts of "notability" and "importance" are in play in the criterion and no mention of record label notability is made, only importance (which is explicitly defined as having nothing to do with notability). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe a "weak" keep) – Google News archive is still down. I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and found plenty of brief mentions of this musician. There are things like this in The StarPhoenix, various mentions of him as part of the band Reform Party (example), a mention in a review in Exclaim!. More convincing is this article about him in The StarPhoenix. (It says in part that he "decided to make a go out of music full time around 15 years ago. In that time, he's released nine albums, toured much of the globe and has made a name for himself in the underground hip-hop scene.") Sure, it would be nicer to have that sort of coverage in a national publication, but WP:NMUSIC does not exclude local coverage—if it's reliable and significant, of course. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added some minor coverage in Exclaim! that refers to his lyrical content and a note from Fake Four Inc. (Circle Into Square's sister label) about his European tour with Noah23. If he didn't before, with the above-added sources he certainly seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1 now. He also meets #5, unless the objectors can cite policy to the effect that notability is implied in the explicit definition of "important" that conspicuously fails to mention anything about the notability of the label itself despite the fact that the concept of notability is very much in play in the definition itself with regard to the artists on the label. According to the definition as written (which is a definition that makes an explicit distinction between the concepts of importance and notability) Circle Into Square is "one of the more important indie labels" because it has "a history of more than a few years" and " a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". Kay the Aquanaut has released "two or more albums" (three to be precise) on this important label, and therefore meets MUSICBIO #5. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Let us try one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2014 (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.