- 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. After three full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has ensued herein. North America 1000 08:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Snak the Ripper
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Snak the Ripper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a musician, not
properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. This person is a direct associate of
Caspian who's also up for AFD, and was of course created by the same user (bolstering the existing suspicions of a direct
conflict of interest) -- and while there's a potentially stronger notability claim here as a
Western Canadian Music Award nominee, that's only a regional award and not a national one that would confer an "inherent" notability pass under NMUSIC #8, so it would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but isn't highly notable enough to exempt him from having to be well-sourced just because the article has the word "award" in it.
The other attempted notability claim here is that a song did well on the iTunes charts, but that's a single-vendor
WP:BADCHART that does not pass NMUSIC's charting criterion -- notability because charting attaches only to
IFPI certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, not individual online music stores.
But the referencing here isn't cutting it at all, depending far too heavily on
blogs and directory entries with not nearly enough properly reliable coverage in real media shown.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations site where people are entitled to have Wikipedia articles at their own personal demand.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: just a note for anyone who wants to go looking that you might find something looking for Stealth Bomb Records. I didn't find anything helpful but I really did only the barest search. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes GNG with SIGCOV in numerous outlets on the first two pages of Google News. straight.com
[1], sootoday.com
[2], Nanaimo News Bulletin
[3], Hip-hop Canada
[4]
Also, I think the nom has the wrong COI claim. User EthanWiki does not appear to be a COI at all,however, we do have contributions from user SnakTheRipper, who has only edited this article and who is blocked. Regardless, GNG is met, SNGs are therefore irrelevant. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 13:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)- More coverage here in Vice [5]. Overall, this subject is much more notable than during the 2010 AfD, with a lot of coverage about a beef with Madchild around 2015 that can be added to the article. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 13:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty much a textbook fail of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO to boot. Sourcing is a mess of blogs and editorially questionable fansites, there's no evidence of "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." and it's at that first and most basic test that we fall. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
04:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- We're not looking specifically at sources in the article. We're looking at if they EXIST, and I have provided 5 sources that I feel can be used to meet GNG. Can you please comment on those? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 11:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment These sources are hyper-local and I can't see they amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources". The Vice mention is a passing mention specifically about 'the beef that’s erupted between Madchild and Snak the Ripper' and I cannot see how having beef with Madchild is evidence of an enduring impact on the world of music. Quite apart from WP:GNG, we also have some beef meeting the subject specific guidelines, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." I'd also appreciate keeping the discussion here and off my talk page. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG mentions nothing about sources being local or not, so we can't discredit based on that. Your assessment of Vice is fair. I'm not entertaining complaints about the SNG if we can meet GNG.
GNG's text says
Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence.
- "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 12:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)- We certainly don't have a rule that local sources are forbidden, but we do have a rule that purely local coverage isn't enough to pass GNG if it's virtually all that a person actually has. Local newspapers cover local figures in contexts that don't meet an encyclopedic standard of notability all the time — candidates in city council elections, presidents of local parent-teacher associations, high school athletes, local bands playing at local pubs, and on and so forth — so that level of coverage isn't necessarily enough to get a person over GNG all by itself. GNG isn't just "count the sources and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number" — GNG does take into account the notability or non-notability of the context of what any given source is covering the person for, and discounts some sources as not helping to build notability if they aren't covering the person in notable contexts. Bearcat ( talk) 17:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep; touring and shows have recieved some press [6] [7] [8] [9]. Other additional sources, such as those from Exclaim! [10] and The Chronicle-Journal [11], when combined with the above sourcing, pushes the subject past GNG imo. I see coverage spanning from 2010 [12] until 2022 [13]. Mbdfar ( talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete never had a charted single, no releases on a major record brand. I don't think the sources above are enough for wp:music #1. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. General coverage clearly exists and has been posted above. If the sourcing in the article is bad or if the article is promotional, then fix it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to add to the discussion, there appears to be some consensus emerging for keeping the article on the basis of WP:SIGCOV by independent WP:RS, while concurrently there is a consensus that perhaps the available sources and coverage fall short of meeting WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Something that should definitely be taken into account is whether the sources have merit as significant coverage. I would suggest that if the sources don’t meet that standard, then the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY. If they do have merit as significant coverage, however, the article should be kept due to the subject’s notability. Shawn Teller ( talk) 19:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that's the problem, because the sources presented above are the same sources as those already in the article and that there search of Exclaim! - a blog/website with no editorial oversight I can see, curated by 'Ontario Creates' is neither a WP:RS or even carries WP:SIGCOV (three video links, a tour announcement and a short review of 'Sex Machine'). Now if we're calling Hip Hop Canada or the Sarajevo Times RS, then the Hip Hop Canada piece is that self same tour announcement and the 2015 Sarajevo Times piece calls Snak famous because he was '2nd on the Hip Hop list of iTunes for three weeks' and is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website. And then there's the Vernon Morning Star piece - an interview in a hyper-local paper with the subject's promoter. So I really can't see an argument to support WP:GNG passing RS OR SIGCOV!!! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- For what it's worth Exclaim! is listed at WP:RSMUSIC and does have an editorial team( [14]). Also "Sarajevo Times piece ... is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website" - Sarajevo Times is also a Bosnian publication. Sarajevo is in Bosnia. What's wrong with Bosnia? Mbdfar ( talk) 15:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that's the problem, because the sources presented above are the same sources as those already in the article and that there search of Exclaim! - a blog/website with no editorial oversight I can see, curated by 'Ontario Creates' is neither a WP:RS or even carries WP:SIGCOV (three video links, a tour announcement and a short review of 'Sex Machine'). Now if we're calling Hip Hop Canada or the Sarajevo Times RS, then the Hip Hop Canada piece is that self same tour announcement and the 2015 Sarajevo Times piece calls Snak famous because he was '2nd on the Hip Hop list of iTunes for three weeks' and is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website. And then there's the Vernon Morning Star piece - an interview in a hyper-local paper with the subject's promoter. So I really can't see an argument to support WP:GNG passing RS OR SIGCOV!!! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the sources presented both in the article and during this discussion for reliability, independence, and depth of coverage of this subject would be very helpful in determination of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - If I don't have a source assessment table up by the end of Tuesday (UTC -4), please ping me. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 14:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - wait a minute, subject charted on the Canadian Albums Chart with two different albums. [15] Chart specifically listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. Subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. Mbdfar ( talk) 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep – I agree with Thebiguglyalien (talk), general coverage clearly exists and the right thing to do is fix the “problem”, if it needs fixing. I’ve removed a non RS, improved the lede, added a citation from Red Deer Advocate, a daily newspaper in Alberta, Canada established in 1901, and will continue to help improve the page. Dfj0719 ( talk) 04:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I improve the writing on the page, added citations including HipHopDX which was acquired by Warner Music in Music Business Worldwide (MBW) is this quote “A STAND-ALONE EDITORIAL ENTITY WITH JOURNALISTIC INDEPENDENCE, HIPHOPDX IS BEING GIVEN INVESTMENT TO HELP GROW ITS PRESENCE IN ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES.” WARNER MUSIC GROUP SPOKESPERSON. Dfj0719 ( talk) 04:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Noisey is a brand of Vice Media Dfj0719 ( talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment -
-
Red Deer Advocate and
The Chronicle-Journal are enough on their own to pass GNG. Everything else at that point is just bonus content. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (
work /
talk)
18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ Oaktree b: would you like to adjust your !vote based on the information posted by Mbdfar regarding MUSICBIO? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (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 no consensus. After three full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has ensued herein. North America 1000 08:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Snak the Ripper
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Snak the Ripper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a musician, not
properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. This person is a direct associate of
Caspian who's also up for AFD, and was of course created by the same user (bolstering the existing suspicions of a direct
conflict of interest) -- and while there's a potentially stronger notability claim here as a
Western Canadian Music Award nominee, that's only a regional award and not a national one that would confer an "inherent" notability pass under NMUSIC #8, so it would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but isn't highly notable enough to exempt him from having to be well-sourced just because the article has the word "award" in it.
The other attempted notability claim here is that a song did well on the iTunes charts, but that's a single-vendor
WP:BADCHART that does not pass NMUSIC's charting criterion -- notability because charting attaches only to
IFPI certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, not individual online music stores.
But the referencing here isn't cutting it at all, depending far too heavily on
blogs and directory entries with not nearly enough properly reliable coverage in real media shown.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations site where people are entitled to have Wikipedia articles at their own personal demand.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: just a note for anyone who wants to go looking that you might find something looking for Stealth Bomb Records. I didn't find anything helpful but I really did only the barest search. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes GNG with SIGCOV in numerous outlets on the first two pages of Google News. straight.com
[1], sootoday.com
[2], Nanaimo News Bulletin
[3], Hip-hop Canada
[4]
Also, I think the nom has the wrong COI claim. User EthanWiki does not appear to be a COI at all,however, we do have contributions from user SnakTheRipper, who has only edited this article and who is blocked. Regardless, GNG is met, SNGs are therefore irrelevant. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 13:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)- More coverage here in Vice [5]. Overall, this subject is much more notable than during the 2010 AfD, with a lot of coverage about a beef with Madchild around 2015 that can be added to the article. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 13:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty much a textbook fail of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO to boot. Sourcing is a mess of blogs and editorially questionable fansites, there's no evidence of "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." and it's at that first and most basic test that we fall. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
04:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- We're not looking specifically at sources in the article. We're looking at if they EXIST, and I have provided 5 sources that I feel can be used to meet GNG. Can you please comment on those? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 11:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment These sources are hyper-local and I can't see they amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources". The Vice mention is a passing mention specifically about 'the beef that’s erupted between Madchild and Snak the Ripper' and I cannot see how having beef with Madchild is evidence of an enduring impact on the world of music. Quite apart from WP:GNG, we also have some beef meeting the subject specific guidelines, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." I'd also appreciate keeping the discussion here and off my talk page. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG mentions nothing about sources being local or not, so we can't discredit based on that. Your assessment of Vice is fair. I'm not entertaining complaints about the SNG if we can meet GNG.
GNG's text says
Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence.
- "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 12:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)- We certainly don't have a rule that local sources are forbidden, but we do have a rule that purely local coverage isn't enough to pass GNG if it's virtually all that a person actually has. Local newspapers cover local figures in contexts that don't meet an encyclopedic standard of notability all the time — candidates in city council elections, presidents of local parent-teacher associations, high school athletes, local bands playing at local pubs, and on and so forth — so that level of coverage isn't necessarily enough to get a person over GNG all by itself. GNG isn't just "count the sources and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number" — GNG does take into account the notability or non-notability of the context of what any given source is covering the person for, and discounts some sources as not helping to build notability if they aren't covering the person in notable contexts. Bearcat ( talk) 17:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep; touring and shows have recieved some press [6] [7] [8] [9]. Other additional sources, such as those from Exclaim! [10] and The Chronicle-Journal [11], when combined with the above sourcing, pushes the subject past GNG imo. I see coverage spanning from 2010 [12] until 2022 [13]. Mbdfar ( talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete never had a charted single, no releases on a major record brand. I don't think the sources above are enough for wp:music #1. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. General coverage clearly exists and has been posted above. If the sourcing in the article is bad or if the article is promotional, then fix it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to add to the discussion, there appears to be some consensus emerging for keeping the article on the basis of WP:SIGCOV by independent WP:RS, while concurrently there is a consensus that perhaps the available sources and coverage fall short of meeting WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Something that should definitely be taken into account is whether the sources have merit as significant coverage. I would suggest that if the sources don’t meet that standard, then the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY. If they do have merit as significant coverage, however, the article should be kept due to the subject’s notability. Shawn Teller ( talk) 19:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that's the problem, because the sources presented above are the same sources as those already in the article and that there search of Exclaim! - a blog/website with no editorial oversight I can see, curated by 'Ontario Creates' is neither a WP:RS or even carries WP:SIGCOV (three video links, a tour announcement and a short review of 'Sex Machine'). Now if we're calling Hip Hop Canada or the Sarajevo Times RS, then the Hip Hop Canada piece is that self same tour announcement and the 2015 Sarajevo Times piece calls Snak famous because he was '2nd on the Hip Hop list of iTunes for three weeks' and is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website. And then there's the Vernon Morning Star piece - an interview in a hyper-local paper with the subject's promoter. So I really can't see an argument to support WP:GNG passing RS OR SIGCOV!!! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- For what it's worth Exclaim! is listed at WP:RSMUSIC and does have an editorial team( [14]). Also "Sarajevo Times piece ... is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website" - Sarajevo Times is also a Bosnian publication. Sarajevo is in Bosnia. What's wrong with Bosnia? Mbdfar ( talk) 15:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that's the problem, because the sources presented above are the same sources as those already in the article and that there search of Exclaim! - a blog/website with no editorial oversight I can see, curated by 'Ontario Creates' is neither a WP:RS or even carries WP:SIGCOV (three video links, a tour announcement and a short review of 'Sex Machine'). Now if we're calling Hip Hop Canada or the Sarajevo Times RS, then the Hip Hop Canada piece is that self same tour announcement and the 2015 Sarajevo Times piece calls Snak famous because he was '2nd on the Hip Hop list of iTunes for three weeks' and is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website. And then there's the Vernon Morning Star piece - an interview in a hyper-local paper with the subject's promoter. So I really can't see an argument to support WP:GNG passing RS OR SIGCOV!!! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the sources presented both in the article and during this discussion for reliability, independence, and depth of coverage of this subject would be very helpful in determination of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - If I don't have a source assessment table up by the end of Tuesday (UTC -4), please ping me. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 14:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - wait a minute, subject charted on the Canadian Albums Chart with two different albums. [15] Chart specifically listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. Subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. Mbdfar ( talk) 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep – I agree with Thebiguglyalien (talk), general coverage clearly exists and the right thing to do is fix the “problem”, if it needs fixing. I’ve removed a non RS, improved the lede, added a citation from Red Deer Advocate, a daily newspaper in Alberta, Canada established in 1901, and will continue to help improve the page. Dfj0719 ( talk) 04:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I improve the writing on the page, added citations including HipHopDX which was acquired by Warner Music in Music Business Worldwide (MBW) is this quote “A STAND-ALONE EDITORIAL ENTITY WITH JOURNALISTIC INDEPENDENCE, HIPHOPDX IS BEING GIVEN INVESTMENT TO HELP GROW ITS PRESENCE IN ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES.” WARNER MUSIC GROUP SPOKESPERSON. Dfj0719 ( talk) 04:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Noisey is a brand of Vice Media Dfj0719 ( talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment -
-
Red Deer Advocate and
The Chronicle-Journal are enough on their own to pass GNG. Everything else at that point is just bonus content. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (
work /
talk)
18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ Oaktree b: would you like to adjust your !vote based on the information posted by Mbdfar regarding MUSICBIO? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (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.