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. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Saxsquatch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Doesn't meet musicbio. Coverage is there due to John Oates and Daft Punk. No secondary sources outwith that. scope_creep ^Talk 18:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is sufficient coverage under WP:NM Criteria for musicians and ensembles No. 1 which states; "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The collaboration with John Oates and the covers of Daft Punk music coverage is significant. I also did see some other sources when searching in news on Google about tours, which could be added, but I didn't look too much into those specifically. Waddles  🗩  🖉 20:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Waddles. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Where is the evidence? The coverage that is there is due to John Oates and Daft Punk, not him. He is unknown, totally obscure and no referencess have been provided that show him as notable, on this own. It is case of NotInherited. It is worth noting that it is standard industry practice, almost a trope, to do collaborations between new musicians and well established muscians, to promote the new musician. It is as old as the sun. So far there has not be one piece of evidence provides that indicates he is notable. And quoting WP:SIGCOV make it true. scope_creep ^Talk 17:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Scope creep: While I'm not necessarily a fan of the subject, I've heard of him well before the creation of his Wikipedia article and I'm sure many more can say the same, so he's not really "unknown". Also, he didn't inherit notability from Daft Punk, he covered Daft Punk songs, they went viral, and he gained popularity, meaning he has some self-earned notability here if I'm correct. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't work like that on here, and your confirming he is non-notable by definition. If it was a coupla, hundred thousand of your mates, and they bought or streamed his record, he would be instantly notable. Where the references that satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV? scope_creep ^Talk 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Scope creep: Significant coverage is coverage of the subject or topic by multiple sources with/or multiple news articles, searching "Saxsquatch" into Google News yields multiple results. So there's significant coverage, then now does he meet any of WP:MUSICBIO requriements? Yes, with this significant coverage, he easily satisfies "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", which is stated at MUSICBIO. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Well, you've haven't presented any evidence, so far that he is notable, so far,just oh, he is notable characterisation, which is itself suspect. And you don't need to keep quoting policy. scope_creep ^Talk 17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ Scope creep: What evidence do you want presented exactly? The sources in the article should verify notability alone. Waddles  🗩  🖉 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply
          • They're very poor. They are a mixture of primary refs, passing mentions and those are non-specific to the article, e.g. Cale, where the subject is an incidental. None of them are secondary sources, reviews of this work for example, or ones that focus exclusively on him, would be ideal. Not incidental or tangenital links. Proper secondary sources that satisfies Musicbio. scope_creep ^Talk 18:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Can somebody supply two or three reviews of the music to show it is notable. scope_creep ^Talk 10:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sources satisfy WP:GNG. The nominator is inventing new notability requirements that don't exist, and the insistence on providing evidence borders on sealioning. Mlb96 ( talk) 02:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• 'Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 Forbes Senior Contributor. Opiniones express by Forbes Contributors are they're own. Low quality sources.

Ref 2 An interview with John Oates, mentioning in his new sigle in his two short paragraphs. It is music release and is not indepth.

Ref 3 Non-RS. It is trademark application

Ref 4 States the headliner in passing mention is Saxsquatch at ACE Adventure Resort. Passing mention.

Ref 5 Somebody making on Twitter. It is non-RS. It is not an official annoucement.

Ref 6 Another teamup, again from the John Oates Context. A passing mention.

Ref 7 4 sentences with a video. The does have 2.583 millions on Youtube. When you search on Youtube his coverage ranges from 16k up to 88k to 112k streams, so he is notable on Youtube.

I don't plan to look at the rest of the references. All of them are in a contextual relationship to John Oates and Daft Punk. All the other is passing mentions. When you do a before on the subject, it comes John Oates teams with Saxsquatch. Here is Rolling Stones [1]] take on it. Again from the John Oates angle. There is not coverage on the musician at this time. He fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. It is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. scope_creep ^Talk 14:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• From WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The fact that a large amount of the coverage involves his collaborations with other artists does not disqualify it from being significant coverage. That's what I was referring to when I said that you were making up notability requirements that don't exist. Also, I'd recommend looking at refs 11 and 13; they both go fairly in depth on who this guy is and what he's done, particularly ref 11. And don't say they're interviews, including a statement by the subject of the article doesn't make them interviews. Mlb96 ( talk) 16:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

They are all in references to Oates. The standalone articles that only mentions him, in detail in his own context, that are secondary in-depth sources. Where are those sources? They are not in the article. I provided the Rolling Stone ref, which is I see it is in the article (I didn't see it), to illustrate that point The whole article is about John Oates and nothing else. The subject is mentioned in passing only as an add-on. It is inherited from John Oates. The test of this, is if John Oates wasn't there, he would not be mentioned. The same with Daft Punk. He is a good session player, no doubt about it, but that is the whole it, at this time. scope_creep ^Talk 19:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Again, he was never associated with Daft Punk, he covered songs from them and gained notability from that. This is the same situation as how artists/groups like Blue Swede gained notability from their cover of B.J. Thomas's " Hooked on a Feeling". If that one song did not exist, they would have been unpopular or completely unknown today. In this case, if " One More Time" did not exist, Saxsquatch would be irrelevant. Since the song does exist, and he covered it without actual collaboration with Daft Punk, he has uninherited notability and passes the SIGCOV and GNG. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

That makes no sense and is straight fan logic. He doesn't need to be associated with them. scope_creep ^Talk 20:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

You're repeating the exact same argument as before even though I already explained why it is wrong: there is no requirement that he be the main topic of the source for the source to qualify as significant coverage. Your contention that The test of this, is if John Oates wasn't there, he would not be mentioned has no basis in policy. Yes, the coverage would not exist if not for the fact that he's doing a collaboration with Oates, but that is completely irrelevant. The reason that the coverage exists doesn't matter (unless it's paid self-promotion, which this clearly is not), what matters is that the coverage does exist. You also continue to request sources even though I specifically pointed out which sources I am referring to. This discussion is approaching WP:IDONTHEARTHAT territory. Mlb96 ( talk) 20:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Nominator is correct, despite protests. What coverage is significant is not in reliable or independent sources and what coverage is in reliable sources is not significant. The "does not need to be the main subject" clause offers no protection because the coverage of a secondary subject still needs to be more than a few sentences. It is wholly relevant and, in fact, the essence of the SIGCOV standard that coverage of a subject that exists should exist on the merits of the subject independently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 11 October 2021 (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.