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 keep. Courcelles 08:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep (rapper)[edit]

Sleep (rapper) (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)

Non notable musician, fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time. Firstly, he does meet WP:GNG, as demonstrated by the references included in the article and any cursory Google search for his albums. Secondly, as a musician, the specific criteria he has to satisfy are WP:MUSICBIO, which he does - easily meeting criterion #1 (see references in article/more easily found via Google), criterion #5 (Strange Famous Records), and criterion #6 (The Chicharones and Oldominion [the latter don't have an article, but I'd remind you that that implies nothing about notability and the group also meets criterion #6 re: independently notable members]). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well i only found one review from a notable publication and i don't think that is enough. Koala15 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are either reliable or unreliable; "notability" has nothing to do with it. Familiarise yourself with the criteria for reliability. A website can be notable (can be eligible for its own Wikipedia article) without being a reliable source (say, 4chan), and a source can be reliable without being notable by Wikipedia standards (this applies to most sources, most websites, including Hip Hop DX and other sources we use all the time). Some of the references in the article are dead links, but even there there are at least two indisputably reliable sources, the Boston Phoenix and All Music Guide. Did you not check the existing references? Here are a few more from a quick google: [1], [2], [3], [4] The appropriate action for you to take would have been to add a Refimprove template, not call for the article's deletion. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reliable sources for this artist are scarce besides the Boston Phoenix review or the AllMusic source. But i guess we shall see what the other users think. Koala15 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just given you four other sources from a cursory google. And that was leaving out any sources on The Chicharones or Oldominion. This AfD should not have happened; you obviously did no research and possibly didn't read/understand the notability guidelines. The appropriate course of action was a Refimprove. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Koala15 nominated the article for deletion because of the subject's "failure" to meet the general notability guidelines. This assessment is false, as Sleep "has received significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as demonstrated by the sources provided in the article and the further sources provided in this AfD.
  2. As a musician, the specific notability guidelines the subject has to meet are WP:MUSICBIO. These criteria were not consulted by Koala15 before noninating the article for deletion.
  3. Sleep meets criterion #1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. - Sources so far provided include: Exclaim, XLR8R, URB, Willamette Week, Spinner, The Boston Phoenix, and All Music Guide. DocumentError claims that All Music Guide cannot be used to establish notability, but this is only true for artists who have been merely indexed, not for artists who have received non-trivial coverage in the form of biographies or album reviews. In addition to these sources, here are three interviews with Sleep as one half of The Chicharones, from Yahoo, IndyMojo, and Spinner.
  4. Sleep meets criterion #5: Has released two or more albums ... 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 notable). - Sleep has released two albums (and will soon release a third) on Sage Francis's record label Strange Famous Records, whose roster of notable artists includes Sage Francis, B. Dolan, Cecil Otter, Buck 65, No Bird Sing, Metermaids, Curtis Plum, Buddy Peace, Dan le Sac vs Scroobius Pip, Prolyphic, Reanimator and 2Mex.
  5. Sleep arguably meets criterion #6: ...is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. - Sleep is one half of The Chicharones with Josh Martinez, and is a founding member of the Pacific Northwest hip hop collective Oldominion. Oldominion don't have a Wiki article, but they are probably eligible for one, as they almost certainly meet criterion #1 and possibly #6, as other notable member acts include Onry Ozzborn and Grayskul. If Oldominion meet the notability criteria, then Sleep meets criterion #6. If Sleep meets criteria #1 & #5, then he becomes further justification for Oldominion meeting criterion #6, which would circularly further justify Sleep's own article.
That's about all I have to say I think. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2013 (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.
More