Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Tha Noize

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Tha Noize

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Beyond Tha Noize (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)

Fails to address the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN. The main contributors to this article all appear to have an association with the artist or the record label (which is a conflict of interest). The information is not supported by references to independent reliable secondary sources. The article uses BadCharts and there is no evidence that any of the recordings appeared on any notable/acceptable charts. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very confusing and self-serving article. I'd like to see at least three reliable independent sources giving substantial coverage of the subject. Of the refs supplied:

1. A listing with no coverage of the artist.
2. Serieux is a sponsor of the artist: not independent.
3. Spinning Records a label: not independent.
4. to 9. iTunes refs: no substantial coverage of the subject.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first two references are dead. 6 just links to iTunes, so basically an ad. Teraplane (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The Spinnin Records Talent Pool chart is not a reliable chart.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:59, 3 April 2020 (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.