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. Of the comments which specifically analyzed the available source material, the clear consensus is to delete. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 06:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG. The sources featured on the article are very bad (blogs, primary sources) and sometimes don't even mention him. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I removed some of the unreliable sources (Facebook, IMDB, etc.). Many of the sources are about Melvin Van Peebles, other topics rather than him or mentions and none of them show notability (NMUSIC, GNG, NBIO). I checked ProQuest and GNews but didn't find anything useful. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that WP:NMUSIC#6 applies since he worked in a few different notable ensembles, also he seems to be mentioned specifically in a lot of sources after removing the not as good sources for his playing and electronics in particular. WP:NMUSIC#12 might apply for being on WFMU twice. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha which sources meet GNG? Happy to change my assessment. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Now I see. I was even wondering just after my edits thinking there were WP: THREE but those were mentions of Van Peebles on topics that may or may not mention the subject. Thanks for reminding me. I just had a second thought right away. Otuọcha (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha No prob! Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something which is certainly possible. S0091 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Obviously not passing WP: GNG as almost may not be all were reliable sources about another Musician called Van Peebles while it may passively or not mention the subject. Fails WP: MUSIC.Otuọcha (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha isn't it true though that if the article passes WP:MUSICBIO 6 11 12 and also WP:NMUSICOTHER 3 4 or 5, isn't the point that it doesn't have to pass WP:GNG Or am I mistaken? Also the Van Peebles content is only the first few small paragraphs, not even what he is known for in music press, so a little confused. maybe I missed something ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say I have always voted "keep" at minor instances to save pages that may pass a little WP: GNG but for the subject of the article. I can't find WP: SIGCOV per WP: BEFORE. The notability as shown by the sources is dependent on Van Peebles and majorly fails WP: NMUSIC. The question is , what independent citation proves he was a member of the band group listed in the first lead?, Has he won any major musical award? There are no/less performance for his music band and the discography was all featured with questionable references bearing passing mentions. All I could say is there is no source even per WP: THREE. All the Best. Otuọcha (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha I see what you are asking, does not reference 18 for example, a magazine here [1] mention his contribution specifically to a Marc Edwards CD as being notable on page 25? It takes a little while to load for me. I also found this old source [2] where Steve Dalachinsky discusses in a magazine his first collaboration with him. I agree though most of the discography references just seem to be confirming releases through record stores. Because this is not popular music at all and is outside "mass media traditions" it seems WP:NMUSICOTHER might apply as I stated. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a book called the Williamsburg Avant-Garde saying that he was in the group you are talking about. [3]ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide in-depth coverage about Lozupone or his influence. The first one supports he played on an album, Holographic Projections Holograms, but that album is not notable. The second one, Dalachinsky talks about them playing together once to an audience of 5 people including their friends and family which was recorded and put on a CD (no title mentioned, and it misspells Lozupone). The last is a brief mention stating he "at times" played with Slipstream Time Travel, which lists a dozen or so different members at different times. In order to meet #6, it states is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Sources support he played with with various musicians/ensembles but not that he was a prominent member. S0091 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little bit confused, I was just asked for reliable sources that showed he played in those groups, that is what those are. You can check the discographies of those groups also to see what releases he is on, the review of Holographic does say it is a notable album and talks of his playing on it being notable. I found a few more small releases which I added to the discography from a small Swedish record label, and there is one review here [4] where the reviewer from Downtown Music Gallery says Lozupone is one of the names he is familiar with. The article started out about his film work but he seems to do more music. It is hard to say what a "prominent member" is, those words are not usually in a music review. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, meaning there is a Wikipedia article about the album supported by in-depth coverage. In the review by NYC Jazz Record there is no critical assessment about Lozupone and none of the other sources support his prominence, meaning the sources write about his influence or contributions. He's a name in list among others. The one you link to above is WP:blog which are generally considered unreliable. I have checked ProQuest, Newspapers.com, Internet Archive, Google but I have only found passing mentions (a few where his images are credited via WP:COMMONS). S0091 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry it is hard to follow, I am left with further questions about WP:MUSIC #12 or WP:NMUSICOTHER. Let us now consider why WP:MUSIC #6 exists. If this person is only notable for being in one band or working with one person, we can just merge and redirect it. In this case, would we redirect it to Melvin Van Peebles or Marc Edwards & Slipstream Time Travel or Steve Dalachinsky or one of the specific albums or songs he worked on? This is why I am confused at all of this. He has worked to some good degree with all three of those but I do not know what would be the good choice for a redirect. What do you think? Isn't this why there is #6? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12 says a national radio or television network but I don't see any evidence his work has been broadcast on a national network (like NBC, HBO, PBS) and WFMU is a local community radio station. He's not mentioned at Van Peeble's article and they only did one album with an accompanying music video. The album apparently was not released but the video was posted on YouTube as part of Lilly Done the Zampoughi Every Time I Pulled Her Coattail. However, all of that is sourced to unreliable sources so likely should be removed from the article unless secondary sources wrote about the video. Dalachinsky and Lozupone only played together once so Lozupone's work with Peebles and Dalachinsky does not meet "prominent member" bar required by #6. The closest is Marc Edwards (drummer) because Lozupone was "at times" part of the Slipstreams Time Travel and is credited on a least a couple albums. Also, there are no sources that support WP:NMUSICOTHER. S0091 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can see why there is some confusion, WFMU started as a local station but is now webcast nationally and is well known for underground music I believe. About Steve Dalachinsky they have released several recordings together, listed in the discography, but the sources are not great I agree, music store catalogs and internet reviews, maybe they are not notable albums but they do seem to exist. Some of it has been played on WFMU too. That source I found was very old and was shortly after the first collaboration, I just found it as the most reliable source about it, also the first they did seems most successfull. About not being mentioned at Melvin Van Peebles article, he has a long career and I think a lot is missing from it. This is why I am confused, because even though the sources are not great, where would it redirect to, and is that anyhow misleading? I do think they are good issues. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the subject passes WP:NMUSIC and the basic notability requirement. Seems notable to me although some sources need to be rechecked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevoelo (talk • contribs)
Comment: Per WP: BEFORE. Still can't find notability. I have searched on archives, yet just passing. Note that there can be many references while they are never independent of the subject. Otuọcha (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes maybe, but for WP:NMUSIC 6 we do have evidence of collaborating with multiple notable people, maybe we will have to pick one to redirect it to? I think #6 is there to avoid this situation. What do you think? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ans: There are many sources but almost not all seems not to be reliable and the subject has neither appeared on multiple sources that is not interview or passing mentioning. Otuọcha (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes true, but WP:NMUSIC is different rules and doesn't have to be like WP:GNG, that is why it was made a more specific one, which seems to be covered by 2 good sources in addition to a lot of not as good source but different ones, not all the same source, so isn't that something? Also the radio airplay of all of it. NMUSIC has no interview or coverage in it. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did another sweep for Eighty-pound Pug but unfortunately much the same, brief mentions or unreliable sources. The best I got is a presenter bio which strangely did not come up in my search for Lozupone. Interesting person but not helpful for notability. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha So, it seems we have a few good sources for a few facts, and lots of not good different sources for lots of other facts. @S0091 You also seem to want every collaboration to be notable, while WP:NMUSIC #6 does not need that, we only have to show reasonably that there was ongoing collaboration with notables, which is shown in the discography with references. So I'm a bit confused. But even so, if we merge and redirect, where do we merge to, so not to waste all the other editors contributions? Also it is mentioned that some of this is not in the other related articles, isn't pointing that out against WP:BEFORE #C in a way, because none of the articles here are perfect? And also @S0091 did you miss my reply above because you didn't address any of it. Thank you. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThreeBootsInABucket look at what we are saying. For a Wikipedia article to meet a standalone inclusion in an online encyclopedia, it should have reliable and verified sources to claims and contents and independent of tye subject. Here, it means no interview or press releases. It also regards a reliable source like The Guardians, Washington Post, Punch Newspaper, New York Times, etc to have published the subject maybe talking about his achievement to the world of music. It sounds regard mentioning on article about other people. Like, "Alex Lozupone" was an American musician known for his widespread connection to students in Washington school of music. His works has been regarded as the most famous out of his collaboration with Van Peebles and others."
Another may write, "Alex Lozupone wins/nominated for Grammy awards" or can be in parenthesis since we regard an award can be listed only in the official award industry or a reliable source known for it's editorial policy. More often, collaborations do count when the song in question won a major musical award or just notable that it has been broadcasted or sang in a notable event. Well, these are likely the low but editing major to say the article met Notability. In essence, has he win any major award, has his song (singles) been listed at an award or used as reference to education in a reliable source, has a newspaper talk about him and his achievements only, has his music been played on a news broadcast system—if any indicate and a source from the news broadcast website or any other relaible sources, in collab—has the song being taken in news sources ir appear as a standalone article on wikipedia. These can be a milestone step for saying (not almost) an article can be inclusive on wikipedia. All the best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha but what you are saying is not actually policy, you are talking about WP:GNG but WP:MUSIC particularly 6 and 13 and 14 apply, and I gave good sources to back that up which you requested, [5][6] which also shows WP:NMUSICOTHER showing he worked with other notable artists regularly. Also in his discography. Lots of less known musicians who are notable and have articles do not have major awards or major network coverage, even in this case he has been covered and played on WFMU a nationally known radio station for less known music. I feel you are trying to apply the wrong standards which is why he have specific ones for not mainstream music. But still the question is where to redirect to if we remove this? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThreeBootsInABucket This will be my last comment. While I think this discussion is overall healthy, I'm starting to get concerned about WP:Bludgeoning so at this point I'd prefer others offer their opinion. As far as an appropriate merge/redirect target, I will use an actor as an example. It is not uncommon for an actor to have had roles in various productions, yet none significant enough to meet notability. In that situation, it may be best to not make a redirect so if someone searches they get hits on all the articles in which they are mentioned rather than being directed to only one unless there is compelling reason to do so. S0091 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you I do see it, but that is why we have specific WP:NMUSIC #6 because they are different from actors. Maybe both of us are too busy to listen to each other. My point about asking the redirect is I think that is the reason there is WP:NMUSIC #6 at all, but we need expert opinion I think, none of us seem to be expert. If it is deleted we have to be sure to get all the references people have added to other articles. I agree I want to hear others too. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will also be my last comment. I can't find any reason for redirect. Otuọcha (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did some clean up on this article and used some sources from this AfD, there are a lot of sources that are not great but they are for minor catalog details and do not affect notability. This artist seems to collaborate with a lot of people on an ongoing basis and therefore satisfies a few WP:MUSIC types, also with some minor national radio and review coverage discussing his unique playing style. AppleInYourEye (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A thorough analysis of sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 23:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP: BEFORE, the subject meets no notability. And in the first argument, seeing the article, this is a case of Notable based on another subject. Also per having many sources still blogs, Discog (external link) are not verifiable and passing mentions!Otuọcha (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; no reliable sources found that are indepth and is significantly covered. If kept, suggest cleanup. Toadette(Let's discuss together!) 19:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like has been said before, many sources in the article are just obscure sites and sometimes blogs and also record stores that are sources just to show facts about releases not notability, so they are not great sources. Best sources to show collaborating with multiple groups are the new book on the Williamsburg Avant scene for Marc Edwards group and the AMFM Magazine interview for Steve Dalachinsky group. The Jazz Record review talks about his playing in detail on the Marc Edwards album, and Culture Catch says the same detail but this time on his playing with Steve Dalachinsky. The discographies show that he continued to work with both and many others of note. He was the subject of a 3 hour broadcast on WFMU too, there is a source for that, and was on it again to talk about another musician he worked with. I have said this already but it gets lost because of so many replies and so much text. Even without his works with Melvin Van Peebles, all his works are not notable, but all of this suggests WP:NMUSIC #6 #11 #12 and maybe WP:NMUSICOTHER #3 #4 #5 due to being part of a fringe music scene. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed some not great sources and did some cleanup. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and the invoked WP:NMUSIC criterion #6 does not apply here since it is about ensembles and not about musicians in ensembles. The effort to boost up the text is frankly admirable but the result still fails quite short of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Some forensics on the sources: Name drops in texts about something or someone else, e.g. here, here, and here; playlists, e.g. here, here, and here; a bunch of dead links; and a lot of stuff about Melvin Van Peebles. Typical citation-overkill.
Comment Sorry, I do not understand why you are listing the not good sources, I already said that there are some not good sources which are there just to show things that the text says, which is standard Wikipedia policy. I don’t understand what you said about ensembles, it seems completely incorrect, how can an ensemble be in another ensemble? The point of #6 is that there is no easy choice for redirect and it is good to have all that information together in one place. The last source you listed does not mention him only in passing but goes into detail mentioning things about his playing that other sources not as good also confirm and mention. There is also his radio coverage. Also what you listed as playlists are actually interviews and reviews. There are lots of ways he can qualify. Like I said before there are some sources that don’t prove notability but they are not there to do that, they are there to support the things in the text next to them. Every fact on some Wiki page does not have to be notable. Don’t think that is ‘’’citation overkill’’’ that is ‘’’normal Wiki procedure’’’. It seems to confuse people which is why I moved some stuff to the top. There is no way to list the reasons a source is there. Also the Van Peebles stuff is in one tiny section and it does not even strongly affect his notability is it just one of his credits. ‘’’It is not citation overkill if it is supporting the text.’’’ ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While each and everyone of us learns everyday. I will edit the page and remove all unreliable sources or tag them unreliable. That way, you'd see what the article remains. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion is hard to follow, but this article has improved since the last time I added to it, and there seem to be some good claims to notability, but I don’t understand the policies that well. Enough of the sources seem to be good enough. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2024 (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.