Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa Joe Aviance

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Joe Aviance[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking notability beyond WP:1EVENT. Subject is known for losing weight. No evidence of being a notable musical artist. Although he has appeared on TV, none of this appears to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing Aviance has done comes close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Happy New Year everyone and apologies in advance if I make any errors as I'm pretty new on this board. That said, the subject is not only notable for one event (his weight loss) which received plenty of coverage in the media ([1], [2], [3]), but he was initially notable as a recording artist. It was his notability as a recording artist which gave rise to the coverage of his weight loss -, as the catalyst for the weight loss was because of his appearance in Last Night a D.J. Saved My Life (While a DJ Gave Me Trouble) music video and him not liking how he looked as stated in the article. The track Last Night a D.J. Saved My Life (While a DJ Gave Me Trouble) which he appeared in reached number 6 in the Billboards and received plenty of airtime on music stations like MTV and VH1 as stated in the article ("While the musician chose to ignore his unhealthy lifestyle for years, it was a video for his popular 2009 dance anthem, Last Night A DJ Saved My Life that finally triggered him to take action." - "When he saw the footage for the song - which hit number six on the Billboard Magazine Dance Charts and continually played on MTV and VH1 - he couldn’t get over how large he’d become." ; In 2013, he toured the US with his music [4]. He has even been credited on Billboard's publication of 21 Feb 2009 in their "Hot Dance Club Play" list[5]. It's entry kept fluctuating but has been on the charts for 9 weeks according to that source. Along with his music, he has been interviewed on countless TV programmes such as Rachael, The Doctors and Good Morning America [6], [7] [8]. If he was not notable, he would not have been interviewed.[9]. Even IMDb credited him for his filmography - who rigorously go through every footage and credit before crediting individual's bios [10]. A lot of his work are available online for viewing. He has produced, directed, written and appeared in numerous documentaries /films and hosted many shows as stated in his filmography. He has received awards from the City of West Hollywood [11] as well as the American Heart Association which he serves as ambassador [12]. Whatever the community and the closing admin decides, that's fine. I thank everyone for their contribution. Be blessed! CultureCouture (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. The subject passes WP:N with extensive in depth coverage of him from independent WP:RS. CultureCouture (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Only one vote! per person. Far from it, the items you point out above are far from adequate to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was notable enough for them to have him on their shows and talked about him in detail in RS. All I'm seeing here is I don't like it or can't be bothered so delete. I'm also very concerned about the nominator's nomination habit. Going through his log, one finds that he nominate articles on the same day they were created, and instead of adding cats to uncategorized new articles, he rather tag them. This is frowned upon by Wikipedians.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - You obliviously do not understand the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. It is based on the application of valid references as defined by Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with "real-world" popularity. Additionally, I do not believe the references meet the criteria for inclusion. On a side note, if you feel the user's nomination does not reflect the standards of Wikipedia, I suggest you issue a complaint in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or whatever noticeboard you deem applicable. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll tell you what I don't understand: You tagging newly created articles within minutes or few hours of their creation thereby disrupting the project and driving new editors away; not even bothering to find sources; tagging uncategorised new articles when you could have simply added one cat (the time and energy you spent tagging an uncat articles, you could have spent it adding a cat). I can go on forever, but let's not. Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - </sigh> Again, please read my prior comment. Also, do you think making comments such as, "Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack," assumes good faith or does not meet the criteria in WP:UNCIVIL or WP:UIC? reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course we should always assume good faith. However when this becomes a habit going by one's "edit" history, then obviously there is a problem. WP:DRIVEBY without making any effort to improve the article is certainly not helpful to the project. Biting newbies with silly tags within minutes of creating an article which has not even been developed yet causes them to give up and drives them away. This is what you've been doing for years going by your edit history. The facts are the facts, and we can't claim WP:AGF when the facts are staring us right in the face. You want people to assume good faith but you don't want to afford the same to newbies? You can't have it both ways. I rather not derail this discussion any further with silly comments back and forth, so knock yourself out and don't forget to turn the lights off on your way out. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @killiondude and Spartaz Shouldn't this debate be closed (since yesterday by the look of things)? Poor CultureCouture! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom's rationale of WP:1EVENT. Even coverage of that is pretty scant. Some folks do take their 15 minutes of fame and manage to parlay it into a career during which they do rise to the level of notability. This is not one of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree, and actually agree with CultureCouture. He was notable first as an artist which precipitated his weight loss which also received plenty of coverage. There are plenty of sources cited and all I'm seeing is I don't like it or lazy nomination as I have seen before with the nominator of this article since I have had a running with them in numerous articles where they ignored WP:BEFORE. Even if we are to go with your (and the nominator's) one event rationale, a separate article can still be created according to policy as "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one." Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sources would clarify which side of the argument is policy base. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting irrelevant commentary

Comment I thought this discussion was supposed to be closed two days ago and we can't relist thrice in a row? CultureCouture (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my last comment on this dubious and disingenuous nomination and discussion. A clear disregard for policy as stated here. Most of the sources cited are reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, and cover the subject in detail as evident therein. This is merely a ruse in my opinion, and a deliberate attempt to flout policy and enable certain individuals to canvas and vote according to their own biases. The deliberate targeting of Black / African articles is just foolishness. We need editors in this field but some individuals are chasing them away from the project with their foolishness. @ CultureCouture, if you need help to escalate and report this do not hesitate to contact me. Terrible! Absolutely terrible! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO, sources are too sketchy to meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 00:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. -- Begoon 00:21, 26 January 2018 (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.