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. MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Piotr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This "article" is a thinly veiled advertisement, and the sources are standard puffery. Collaborating with notable musicians is a classic WP:NOTINHERITED for notability of this subject. It was rejected 4 times (!) at AfC, I can't honestly say I'm clear on what made the 5th version any more suitable, and this page has only become more vanispamcruftisement since. The gross overuse of quotes just shows how desperate the people who created and expanded this were for filler material to make this look like a legitimate article. Plus, the article absolutely reeks of COI editing; The Digital Sky is a music company affiliated with the subject, and I've just blocked the creator per WP:CORPNAME. Technically not eligible for G4, as tempting as it would be, so starting this discussion here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reviews of albums, links to non-notable websites and other semi-useless sources. One, maybe two bigger mentions as sources. Overall, not for Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Oaktree b: reviews of albums and singles in real publications definitely count towards notability (for bands and musicians). BuySomeApples (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's enough sources to meet gng, and probably other guidelines too. There's PopMatters,[1] Entropy,[2] Tiny Mix Tapes,[3][4][5][6] Cyclic Defrost,[7] and The Needle Drop,[8] among others. There's also a host of interviews in other publications (I know they don't add to notability, but they make the page more complete). BuySomeApples (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all utterly run of the mill filler material for publications that need to churn out something. Obscure website reviews/interviews obscure "musician" (to be generous with the term), so what? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only included music publications that are themselves notable and used as reliable sources. (It's not like PopMatters is some obscure site.) The music publications do publish a lot of articles about music, but that's kind of the purpose of their existence. As long as they have standards it isn't a problem. There are definitely some niche reviews that I could have added here but didn't. And how is it "generous" to use the term musician? It seems like the subject is primarily known for making music. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BuySomeApples Could you link here 2-3 best sources? Ones that are most reliable and meet WP:SIGCOV ? Oh, I see you did, thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Piotrus: I was gonna add them again but then I saw your edit! I just chopped down the page to take out a lot of the filler and add better sources. (definitely not my best work), but at least it's more encyclopedic. (Edit: I didn't notice XLR8R when I first looked at the page, but there's that too.[9][10]) BuySomeApples (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Sources in article don't show depth and not enough Varousz (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. You know it's a red flag where a Foo-ian artist does not even have an article on Foo-ian Wikipedia. I checked, he never even had one on pl wiki. At best, WP:TOOSOON, does not seem to meet WP:NARTIST. Article's author was a WP:SPA blocked for "promotional username", so some WP:COI is very likely anyway. PS. That said, the new sources linked by BSA above are not bad. This should've been deleted few years back (when it was recreated, since it was deleted before, and when recreated in 2018, the better sources BSA found, dating to 2019+, did not exist) but the subject is possibly notable now. That said, I dislike using Wikipedia for advertising, so unless someone feels like rewriting this, I am not feeling like voting keep to encourage more abuse of the project by people or their managers who just want to use us to further their career. So for now I'll abstain, even through given the sources I'd usually vote weak keep or such. Also, given the insistence on promoting this person, there is always the suspicion the 'better' sources were paid for anyway. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... Meh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even without the blatant promotion, we're still left with the skeleton of a COI article about someone that worked with notable people. The "best" sources are still extremely marginal, very much run of the mill filler material. Covering notable songs and happening to collaborate with people notable for reasons entirely unrelated to the subject is unremarkable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to beat a dead horse but I took out the covers / collaboration filler so its only stuff which is actually about him. (weirdly most of the collab stuff was sourced to blogs and personal sites anyway) Most of the page was written by me at this point but I'll admit none of the sources are Rolling Stone. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BuySomeApples. There's enough RS here to pass WP:GNG among all the fluff and promotion.4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage that is significant is either promotional or WP:MILL or not reliable. After wading through the cruft, coverage that establishes this musician has had an impact through their own efforts on the industry or culture is distinctly missing. This article attempts to instead cobble together a chimera from this tidbit here and that interview there and this review in the other place and unlike the classical chimera which had the power of myth and magic to keep it together, this eventually falls apart. In other words, what The Blade of the Northern Lights said. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Source analysis. Given that the deletionists seem to be ignoring basic policies on evaluating sources for GNG, I am providing a detailed source analysis demonstrating that the subject meets criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. All of the magazines and e-zines listed are independent and have editorial oversight and are considered reliable independent and significant RS. See below.4meter4 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

Source	Independent?	Significant Coverage?	Reliable?	Pass/Fail	Notes
https://www.popmatters.com/derek-piotr-grunt-review-2608483566.html	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent magazine with byline
https://entropymag.org/derek-piotr-making-and-then-unmaking/	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/premiere-derek-piotr-bhadrakali-lines-are-all-dying-mix-simon-whetham	Y	Y	Y	Y	Granted a rather thin review of a remix album; but nevertheless independent feature on it with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/listen-derek-piotr-repeating-bloom-simon-whetham	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/premiere-derek-piotr-grunt	Y	Y	Y	Y	Song review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/listen-derek-piotr-earth-edit-chaircrusher-remix	Y	Y	Y	Y	Song review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.cyclicdefrost.com/2019/07/derek-piotr-avia-dpsr/	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent magazine with byline

Those are thinly veiled booster articles masquerading as actual reviews, and they're independent but generally very obscure outlets. I think Eggishorn above said it best, so I won't go on further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. They are independent magazines and e-zines (from multiple nations/continents) that regularly produce independent reviews with editorial oversight. They are regularly used to verify content on wikipedia, and are respectable sources. Saying otherwise is just flat out not true. WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not convincing. 4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Disagreements on the reliability of a source can be brought up at WP:RSN. ––FormalDude talk 21:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. However, I see no valid or rationale reason to challenge them. The sources are clearly independent. They have editorial boards, by-lined authors writing musical criticism, and are not regurgitating content found elsewhere. They are clearly doing the work of music criticism in the way that an independent publication should. There is no consensus currently that these sources are unreliable (such as those catalogued at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and I see no valid or obvious reason to challenge them. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep album reviews in many reliable sources are the solid reason I accepted this at AFC and the nominator's attempt to dismiss reliable sources secondary coverage such as Pop Matters and Tiny Mix Tapes is not credible. it is how the notability of musicians and bands are determined as per WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 particularly when interviews are discounted. The sources have been approved in discussions at Wiki Project Albums. Reliable sources coverage that is independent and secondary is not run of the mill and although the coi is unfortunate it is not a valid reason for deletion and there are no other valid reasons, so the article passes WP:GNG and should remain although it can be edited for neutrality, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple random one-off reviews of completely obscure albums means nothing, other than places need to fill their pages with... pretty much anything, and wannabe musicians will do anything to push their music anywhere that will. None of these albums has any meaningful commercial success or impact, and the sorts of reviews in question are completely run of the mill; absolutely nothing remarkable about it. Unless they'd confer notability on pretty much everyone else they review, which does not appear to be the case, we're left with nothing but that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, your dismissive tone has no basis in policy or guidelines. As I said album reviews in reliable sources as mentioned above plus Drowned in Sound and the Quitous are the main criteria for determining the notability of a musical act. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. I hazard to guess that this is the most obviously notable musician article in this AfD category and of course if the albums are reviewd in five or six reliable sources they are not obscure and the reviews are not random, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 24 September 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.