- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lord Apex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An "up-and-coming" rapper who clearly has an extremely well-oiled promotion machine, but little coverage that has not been obviously paid for. There's one full-length independent article that is good coverage [1] (which is probably why it's used in three separate refs). The other stuff has "promotional feature" written all over it - via Carhartt or Novation, or by-the-numbers interview. Plus the usual smattering of two-paragraph video blurbs. No charting to offset any of this. - Sorry for the tone, but sometimes this constant abuse of WP as an advertising platform just ticks me off. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify: it doesn't really matter who added what to the article at which point - it's the totality of sources that makes or breaks notability. Here's the complete rundown and how I'd assess them for the purpose of establishing notability:
-
1
Crack article - good, independent coverage - 2 same as 1
-
3
promotional feature - artist is signed with Carhartt -
4 promo interview, just an open platform for the artist
-
5 press release
-
6 promo interview, and in-house
-
7 listing
-
8 press release
-
9 album review
-
10 press release
-
11 press release
-
12 promotional feature - artist is signed with Novation
-
13 listing (and no award}}
-
14 / halfway between a listing and something usable, I'd say
-
15 press release
-
16 press release
-
17 blurb
-
1
- Seems borderline to me, and on the wrong side. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with an in-depth interview in a magazine as a source, how would you define a "promo interview" as opposed to an acceptable one? And yeah, he probably has been paid by those independently notable companies to create content for their blogs - isn't that in itself notable? Maybe the Novation source is a promotion for their equipment a little, but the Carharrt one there's not even a link to buy clothes he just talks about his music. The point is, he most likely didn't pay these companies to blog about him - they wanted him involved in the product for their image, which makes it a relevant source and notable imo. Some of those press release sources aren't top quality sources I will agree with you on that, but I was going overboard because I do strongly feel he meets notability requirements and I didn't want to completely scrap another editor's additions either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit) Thanks to GnomingStuff, and another French source I found, I've added another two in-depth pieces about Lord Apex to the article's references. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 15:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Hello! As the creator of the article, I can assure you it wasn't my intention to be promotional. I tried to use a neutral tone without saying things like "up and coming". I can't speak for the second editor, although judging by the tone of their additions I wouldn't be surprised if they are somehow involved with the artist. Personally, I just like their music and think they are deserving of a Wikipedia page. Would you feel more inclined to accept the article if I fixed some of their edits to make them less "promotional"? Crack, Complex and Carharrt all covering this guy seems pretty notable to me - plus I've literally seen his face on billboards in my city (London) over the past month. He's just as big as Greentea Peng, who I also wrote about and no-one has deleted - he just doesn't get coverage in broadsheet newspapers. Thanks, The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 02:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Spaghetti. This raises an interesting issue with promotional articles and WP:BEFORE -- it's important to discern how intertwined the promotion is with the article itself. Considering how much spam there is it's understandable to get frustrated and take shortcuts, but good faith is always important. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 11:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 3 WP:SIGCOV reliable independent sources are good enough. SK2242 ( talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Sourcing is not tug-of-war. The existence of press releases does not nullify the existence of reliable sources; Complex in particular is one of the largest rap publications currently. I also am dubious on the distinction being drawn between a "promo interview" and a regular one -- virtually every artist interview or profile coincides with their having an album or song to promote. At any rate, here's another one (in French): https://intrld.com/on-a-parle-supply-an-demand-new-york-et-sensei-avec-lord-apex/ Gnomingstuff ( talk)
- Good source, and that's actually a nice example of an interview that is not a pure promotion platform: the interviewer asks actual researched questions. Compare
4, which is merely a boilerplate to give the interviewee a space to expound their own merits. There's a pretty clear difference, and it's a distinction that has to be drawn when assessing the significance of coverage. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Boilerplate questions are not necessarily an indicator of a "promo interview." Perhaps the publication already ran all the longer Q&As its budget allowed for that month. Perhaps some content was cut for space. Perhaps it was an email interview compared to a phoner or in-person. Perhaps the one writer is simply better at interviewing people. Whether the resulting coverage is "significant" is a valid question but separate from the interview being "promo" -- something that would describe virtually any interview or feature in any music publication no matter the length, since these are, by nature, facilitated by publicists as a way for artists to promote their new music, . Gnomingstuff ( talk) 04:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good source, and that's actually a nice example of an interview that is not a pure promotion platform: the interviewer asks actual researched questions. Compare
4, which is merely a boilerplate to give the interviewee a space to expound their own merits. There's a pretty clear difference, and it's a distinction that has to be drawn when assessing the significance of coverage. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lord Apex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An "up-and-coming" rapper who clearly has an extremely well-oiled promotion machine, but little coverage that has not been obviously paid for. There's one full-length independent article that is good coverage [1] (which is probably why it's used in three separate refs). The other stuff has "promotional feature" written all over it - via Carhartt or Novation, or by-the-numbers interview. Plus the usual smattering of two-paragraph video blurbs. No charting to offset any of this. - Sorry for the tone, but sometimes this constant abuse of WP as an advertising platform just ticks me off. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify: it doesn't really matter who added what to the article at which point - it's the totality of sources that makes or breaks notability. Here's the complete rundown and how I'd assess them for the purpose of establishing notability:
-
1 Crack article - good, independent coverage
- 2 same as 1
-
3 promotional feature - artist is signed with Carhartt
-
4 promo interview, just an open platform for the artist
-
5 press release
-
6 promo interview, and in-house
-
7 listing
-
8 press release
-
9 album review
-
10 press release
-
11 press release
-
12 promotional feature - artist is signed with Novation
-
13 listing (and no award}}
-
14 / halfway between a listing and something usable, I'd say
-
15 press release
-
16 press release
-
17 blurb
-
1
- Seems borderline to me, and on the wrong side. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with an in-depth interview in a magazine as a source, how would you define a "promo interview" as opposed to an acceptable one? And yeah, he probably has been paid by those independently notable companies to create content for their blogs - isn't that in itself notable? Maybe the Novation source is a promotion for their equipment a little, but the Carharrt one there's not even a link to buy clothes he just talks about his music. The point is, he most likely didn't pay these companies to blog about him - they wanted him involved in the product for their image, which makes it a relevant source and notable imo. Some of those press release sources aren't top quality sources I will agree with you on that, but I was going overboard because I do strongly feel he meets notability requirements and I didn't want to completely scrap another editor's additions either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit) Thanks to GnomingStuff, and another French source I found, I've added another two in-depth pieces about Lord Apex to the article's references. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 15:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Hello! As the creator of the article, I can assure you it wasn't my intention to be promotional. I tried to use a neutral tone without saying things like "up and coming". I can't speak for the second editor, although judging by the tone of their additions I wouldn't be surprised if they are somehow involved with the artist. Personally, I just like their music and think they are deserving of a Wikipedia page. Would you feel more inclined to accept the article if I fixed some of their edits to make them less "promotional"? Crack, Complex and Carharrt all covering this guy seems pretty notable to me - plus I've literally seen his face on billboards in my city (London) over the past month. He's just as big as Greentea Peng, who I also wrote about and no-one has deleted - he just doesn't get coverage in broadsheet newspapers. Thanks, The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 02:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Spaghetti. This raises an interesting issue with promotional articles and WP:BEFORE -- it's important to discern how intertwined the promotion is with the article itself. Considering how much spam there is it's understandable to get frustrated and take shortcuts, but good faith is always important. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 11:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 3 WP:SIGCOV reliable independent sources are good enough. SK2242 ( talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Sourcing is not tug-of-war. The existence of press releases does not nullify the existence of reliable sources; Complex in particular is one of the largest rap publications currently. I also am dubious on the distinction being drawn between a "promo interview" and a regular one -- virtually every artist interview or profile coincides with their having an album or song to promote. At any rate, here's another one (in French): https://intrld.com/on-a-parle-supply-an-demand-new-york-et-sensei-avec-lord-apex/ Gnomingstuff ( talk)
- Good source, and that's actually a nice example of an interview that is not a pure promotion platform: the interviewer asks actual researched questions. Compare
4, which is merely a boilerplate to give the interviewee a space to expound their own merits. There's a pretty clear difference, and it's a distinction that has to be drawn when assessing the significance of coverage. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Boilerplate questions are not necessarily an indicator of a "promo interview." Perhaps the publication already ran all the longer Q&As its budget allowed for that month. Perhaps some content was cut for space. Perhaps it was an email interview compared to a phoner or in-person. Perhaps the one writer is simply better at interviewing people. Whether the resulting coverage is "significant" is a valid question but separate from the interview being "promo" -- something that would describe virtually any interview or feature in any music publication no matter the length, since these are, by nature, facilitated by publicists as a way for artists to promote their new music, . Gnomingstuff ( talk) 04:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good source, and that's actually a nice example of an interview that is not a pure promotion platform: the interviewer asks actual researched questions. Compare
4, which is merely a boilerplate to give the interviewee a space to expound their own merits. There's a pretty clear difference, and it's a distinction that has to be drawn when assessing the significance of coverage. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.