Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yea Boi Productions

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. MER-C 08:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Boi Productions[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article has been speedily deleted previously under CSD(A7). The author has then recreated the article, identical in every way - including the CSD template - and nothing has been changed. It's an article about a non-notable company and all references/citations are from blogs and Itunes. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration of notability, only self sourced, and worst of all up and down my watchlist in red and blue today! Roxy the dog. bark 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt if recreated again. Subject appears to be the dreamings of a kid who just graduated high school, considers whatever it is he is making in his dorm room a "studio album", and who credits himself on his blog for contributing to "the core sound of the genre". There barely anything online besides self-published material to indicate that this act even exists. The real shame here is that he put in all the effort to write a 4k word article that doesn't, and may never have a place on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This is an article that appears to be solely promotion. No notable sources, so an obvious GNG fail there. I would personally tag it as an WP:A7. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete/Counterclaim I find the comments listed here to be appalling, condescending, and just downright disrespectful. Do you honestly believe that just an artist is not "notable" --- in YOUR eyes only --- because the artist has not signed to a major label (he instead chose to create his own) and has not had a charting single (as I have previously said, he's only recently met exposure) that the artist is unimportant and does not deserve a Wikipedia page?? And by the way, there are LOTS of musicians, entertainers, and people who have pages who haven't graduated high school or have any education at all, so it is inappropriate to diminish notability based on education level. The genre was created by HIM so OBVIOUSLY he is the only one who could have contributed to the genre at this point. To say this article may never have a place on Wikipedia when it has obviously verifiable material when there are hundreds of articles on this website with a substantial lack of information and no sources whatsoever. If this page is deleted for "lack of notability" then it must be brought to attention that this website depends on user contributions and donations (including those of my own) to run. It would be different if this were an invite-only place like HuffPost, but apparently there would be no effort to even create a Wiki page if it were not notable in some way. Who are you guys to say what is and is not notable? Music is music, and by the mere fact that it exists, it is notable. So this page does NOT deserve to be deleted. Timkjones (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. How do you feel you meet these guidelines? Be specific and keep it short please. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very willing to change my !vote here, but obviously only if there is sufficient evidence provided. I have seen no sources that the WP:GNG - which is the overriding policy for notability of all articles. If you can show me some significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources of course, I will change my !vote. It is solely based on policy and what I have been able to find. WIth regards to the assertation of Music is music, and by the mere fact that it exists, it is notable I would ask you to read WP:WHYN. Notability here is not inherited - see WP:ITSA - we need evidence. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that just an artist is not "notable" --- in YOUR eyes only --- because the artist has not signed to a major label (he instead chose to create his own) and has not had a charting single (as I have previously said, he's only recently met exposure) that the artist is unimportant and does not deserve a Wikipedia page?? Yes, that is exactly what I think. It's not a decision for all of time. If the artist manages to continue his fledgling career, and gain significant attention outside of his own social media, there is no reason he can't have an article eventually. But we do not make or keep Wikipedia articles based on our own subjective expectations of a person's potential when that potential fairly evidently hasn't yet come to fruition. TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counterclaim This quote from the guidelines: "Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;" supports my claim. I understand that this artist has not received major attention yet, but these things come with time. This article was created to give people information about the artist, which all other Wikipedia articles are. It's not for promotion, this artist has obviously been promoting himself before the creation of this page. This article is still in the making and is continuously being edited/expanded.Timkjones (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you looked at the wrong guideline first - the General Notability Guidelines are effectively Wikipedia's Golden Rules. If the subject of an article doesn't meet them, the article will be deleted. That doesn't mean there can't be an article about you in the future, it just means that as of right now, it's too soon. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from User:Timkjones: I understand that this artist has not received major attention yet, but these things come with time. shows to me that this is a non-notable topic - at the moment. WP:TOOSOON definitely applies. To be notable, reliable coverage in major outlets is normally preferred. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No authoritative references are provided. Although the subject is interesting, nothing indicates notability..--Rpclod (talk) 23:42, 21 December 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.