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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beast1333[edit]

Beast1333 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable musician. Majority of references here are social networking sites and sites affiliated with the artist. The rest may not meet the standard of 'multiple, non-trivial, reliable works'. Two of the three references are interview pieces, one of which is reprinted on myspace, and the other, "Zocalo Urbano" may not be a reliable source. Cannot find any notable media coverage of this artist through a Google search. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Delete. I see nothing notable here. When this goes, so can the album. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not notable Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP. Mkdw^talk 22:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - ADDED MORE RELIABLE SOURCES TO PROVE AUTHENTICITY AND NOTABILITY OF ARTIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariovega0 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. One free mixtape and one self-released MP3 album, which according to the article sold unimpressively (and that's putting it kindly). Andrew Lenahan - 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Underground Hip Hop artist, independent from corporate label, he satisfied notability for this genre and highly recognized by the underground hip hop community. User:mariovega0 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Comment While the main coverage appears to be hosted by the usual suspects (Myspace & Co), I find this artiste somewhat different from the normal run of rappers. He appears to be somewhat intellectual and coherent, unlike the main bunch who to me seem to be regarding dumbing-down as an art form. (Exception: K'naan, of course.) While the references given aren't what is required yet, I feel there is a possibility that notability may be achieved. This is, of course, provided that an intellectually inclined rap audience exists.... Peridon (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a discussion of whether he's smart or not, we're trying to determine whether he passes WP:MUSIC at this time. As you state, there aren't really any reliable sources or indeed much of anything besides Myspace and the like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's a comment - I personally find a slight degree of notability in it but not enough under Wikipedia criteria to vote keep. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Chicago's Radio Arte WRTE 90.5fm radio station is cited as doing an interview and releasing information about the artist in articles published. Also independent journals/magazines have published articles on Beast1333 such as the ones cited (Indypendent and Zocalo Urbano). MarioVega0 1 Jan 2010 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - Satisfies #1 of the WP:MUSICBIO (Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable). Beast1333 satisfied the underground hip hop genere. HU. 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.190.230 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)— 99.135.190.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP - I don't see why it should be deleted since the article does cite multiple authentic sources and satisfied the WP:MUSICBIO with option #1. This article satisfies regulations according to Wikipedia for the reasons mentioned. User: DanielHumms 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.36.220.220 (talk)
• Keep: Secondary sources are cited in the article. 69.175.10.10 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per WP:BLP: Secondary sources cited (Zocalo Urbano, The Indypendent, radio interview with DJ Rev, WRTE Radio Arte Monthly) and per WP:MUSIC 1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable (secondary sources mentioned above).AlexV0 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) — AlexV0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Despite all impassioned voting above, this is still a straight failure of WP:Music. Inadequate non trivial secondary sources and inadequate releases on notable lables. --A1octopus (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO; the cited sources are things like Twitter, MySpace and blogs, certainly not reliable third party coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the basics of WPMUSICBIO. RichardLowther (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies basics of WPMUSICBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Hmm, 6 out of the 7 non-duplicate keep comments (according to my count) are from IPs or SPAs...curious? Cocytus [»talk«] 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and the creator of the article, User:Gh7mysterio, is a blocked sockpuppet. Hmmmm... TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The music Industry is changing and labels are now irrelevant, you guys are like dinosaurs i call for WP:MUSIC basics to be reformed. The rules must be changed Beast1333 is an Independent Underground well known Artist. The rules must be disputed, they must evolve with the ever changing music industry this is Wikipedia not Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.143.180 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (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.