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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jopaul[edit]

Jopaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Although some random IP came and said to improve the article, I believe the fact this was clearly a paid advertisement is far important and a worse sitaution and therefore deletion is needed, regardless of any notability or claims of it, because as the PROD stated, this is in fact nothing but advertising and the accounts involved have all stated it, therefore WP:NOT which is policy applies, regardless of what anyone else calls it. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not written as an advertisement or anything, I dont understand what is WP:NOT , or how that is applicable to this article. This article has greater news references including from prominent Billboard and the artist clearly passes Notability from every respect. So I created an article as I am one of his fans. The article is more over not an advertisement or anything as I have referred many similar artists wiki pages to create this one. So user Swister is desperate here to clear off my article. I dont know why. I am better stopping my article writing just because of these kind of people who are desperate for deleting pages. Godisthebestone (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Its obvious that the account above is protecting it for promotional reasons, and even then this article is about an obscure artist with little sources. Layla, the remover (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. - > 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.[note 1]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: 1. Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). 6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. 9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Here Jopaul passes not just one but many criteria. So I scream a strong keep. Godisthebestone (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete No real sources to speak of, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. ^Avic_ennasis @ 15:26, 18 Kislev 5777 / 15:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note to user Godisthebestone. All the criteria you cite follows an important WP:MUSIC preamble that you are overlooking: “Musicians or ensembles may be notable…” These are not automatic qualifiers but, rather, points to be considered in determining if a subject merits an encyclopedia entry. That’s why we have these discussions. Editors need to assess the importances of the sources. The ones here are mostly junk with little editorial oversight and filled with hyperbolic claims, made by the subject himself, that are not backed up with attributions. Yeah, there’s some smoke and mirrors here. “The Chicago Tribune” would seem important until you check out the particular place where the article appears: in the Tribune’s “Community Contributors” section where users post their own articles. See: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/community/chi-community-contributors-who-are-they-20130624-story.html) . I’ll admit “Billboard” as a source initially had me thinking the subject might have some merit, until one investigates and finds it was written by the same author of the piece that ran in Respect magazine, both with similar hyperbolic language from the subjects own claims. This indicates the Billboard article is not an independent, third party opinion, but instead part of a multi-headed promotional effort. The other sources, Flex and Popular Magazine, openly solicit content from artists wishing to promote themselves. Plus, the charts cited are insignificant, and the fallacy of notability by association argument is so worn out that it doesn’t bear repeating. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am not finding enough to meet notability guidelines.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Note that Chicago Tribune article is not an article but a "form the community" contribution, an unedited, unpaid reader contribution not useful to establish either fact or notability. I am not certain to what extent Respect. (magazine) is an edited publication (as opposed to an industry megaphone]]; the Billboard column is a source, but it is insufficent to establish notability. We need more WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)S[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.