Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (musician)

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 redirect and delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (musician)[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)

The cited sources do not include anything independent in-depth WP:RS, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better. WP:TOOSOON at best. I propose reversion to the 2007 redirect the solution in my Reply to comment, below. Narky Blert (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are a single and album by the same musician:

and fail WP:NSONG and WP:NALBUM respectively. Narky Blert (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The redirect proposed by the nominator is for a different Sean Kennedy of the band I Killed the Prom Queen, and there is yet another Sean Kennedy in the band Blood Ceremony. This may require a new disambiguation page rather than using that old redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment. Good research, and good point. If converted to a redirect, it should be retargetted to the DAB page Sean Kennedy and tagged {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why exactly would you want to delete all about this specific artist? Can't I just try to find some more sources? The artist has not done many interviews so I'm trying my best...Slbc143

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All (for now) - I reviewed the singer's article for the New Pages Patrol and found it to have potential, but also placed the "additional sources" and "fan's point of view" notices to encourage folks to improve it. Some sources have since been added but I agree with the nominator's reasoning. The singer's article is surely an attempted promotion written from a fan's point of view, with non-encyclopedic tidbits like the names of his brothers or what school he want to. None of that is notable or verifiable in reliable sources. The single and album have not been noticed by the general public, and all sources are either self-created social media or routine listings of the basic existence of the singer and his releases. Good luck to the kid but an encyclopedia article is not warranted until he receives viable coverage by someone other than himself and his fans. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All of the nominated pages fall under the policy WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (WP:NOTPROMO). Moving the articles to mainspace after AfC rejection suggests a certain insistence, but admittedly it is impressive that a brand new editor figured how to properly apply fair use rationales to uploaded images. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment How is this article a means of promotion? It is simply informative...also I have updated some sourcing to include a recently published interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slbc143 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Slbc143, could you please explain how the file you uploaded to Commons, which you indicated as your "own work", has the author credited as "Sean Kennedy"? [1] Bakazaka (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bakazaka that was an upload error and is not meant to be there, I didn’t even know that until you pointed it out Slbc143 (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Slbc143 It's not your own work? Bakazaka (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bakazaka No, the photos belong to Sean Kennedy and his team Slbc143 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no reliable sources. Non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ceethekreator New York Magazine and a local newspaper aren't reliable sources??? Slbc143 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given is not to New York Magazine. Rather, it is a shopping guide component of it called "The Strategist," which self-describes itself as: "....a new site designed to surface the most useful, expert recommendations for things to buy across the vast e-commerce landscape." So, no, it is not an RS. As for the local newspapers as RS, they can be depending on the type and breath of coverage. In this case, a promo piece in a community newspaper franchised by TAPinto.net is not a reliable RS per wikipedia standards. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per reason above. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ShelbyMarion The Strategist’s website is https://nymag.com/strategist/ it is clearly run by New York Magizine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slbc143 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in original comment, The Strategist is a component of New York Magazine. It is a sales guide for product. To be part of New York Magazine website does not mean an "article" in the Strategist is New York Magazine content, nor does it constitute significant coverage in a RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , fails WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2019 (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.