Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'ron Forbes

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'ron Forbes

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

The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO due to a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The article has been deleted four times at Focus the Producer (three for advertising and one for notability), the article creator has not moved this article around various places, and the subject still does not meet the notability guideline. The main contributor is obvious a SPA, it appears his only editing concern is this not yet notable producer. All references are to random low level blogs, that are not considered reliable sources and extremely low selling on Amazon.com is not even worth mentioning per WP:SINGLEVENDOR, let alone provide any notability at all. STATic message me! 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject of this article is notable for being the owner of one of the largest music production companies in the Unites States. He is the owner of dirtyscopebeatz.com which is ranked in the top 75,000 websites in the Unites States. It is also ranked in the top 400,000 websites in the world which if you consider there are an estimated over 600 million websites in the world that is a very notable factor. The subject of the article D'ron Forbes is also one of the only widely know music producers from his birth place making him some what of a corner stone. He has also placed very highly in major competition. During his run on the battle circuit which was hosted by Grammy award winning producer rockwilder, he ranked in the top 40 battle winning producers and the top 50 selling producers of all time.

I think this information alone makes this subjet (D'ron Forbes) notable. Maybe the article could be worded differently but I am new and have no help as people would not want to help me. Thank you for your time. Look and you will see that this is the real Focus The Producer right here. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --LennyPerez44 (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which of those search results constitute the significant independent coverage in reliable sources that would establish notabaility. I can't speak for other editors, but I did search under both names, and fiddled with search parameters and was unable to find any of the needed coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just wanted to clarify that there is a Focus... and a Focus The Producer, just as there is a Chance The Rapper. So many people are confused, but the professional name someone goes by is everything. --LennyPerez44 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed formatting to be in line with AFD standards.♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Yes everyone understands that, there is no confusion going on at all. There is a notable producer named Focus... and one with a similar name, "Focus The Producer" who is not notable per our notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 21:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people feel different than you do StaTICVapor. If not the article would be gone already right? --LennyPerez44 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree since every vote on here is for deletion. Just wait a day or so. This time please do not try to repeatidly recreate an article for this person, as it will be deleted on spot per one of our speedy deletion criteria. STATic message me! 17:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete and Userfy see below for reasoning A simple Google search points to ~~this source~~ many sources which validates notability. I'll be honest I know absolutely nothing about hip hop music, but ~~many~~many are pretty well established, not the New York Times, but established nonetheless. ~~All a subject has to do is meet one criteria of WP:MUSICBIO to be notable this one meets at least three.~~ ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striked through my own comments, Focus... is a different person. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

As much as it pains me to say so and given all the work that was put into this, I spent all weekend going to libraries, looking at trade magazines, anything to validate this article's subject. While he is more notable than your average artist/producer trying to make it, he just doesn't quite meet the hump required at WP:NMUSIC. @LennyPerez44: When this get's userfied, I will work with you to try and get it to where it needs to be. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is not a ridiculous, "I'm well known in my immediate circle of friends" type of article. There are plenty of mentions, esp. in non-RS sources, and being non-RS does not make them bad or evil, just hard to use for our purposes. Obviously, given my "salt" vote, I don't think a good case can be made now, or is likely in the immediate future. But, perhaps once some time has passed, better sources will emerge, or the reliability of existing sources will become more obvious. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solarra thank you very much... I understand the code of Wikipedia better now. I appreciate you being willing to help. Hopefully we can make it happen, this guy has talent and I really like his work. I honestly thought it would be cool to be a wikipedia author as well lol... --LennyPerez44 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true the article is written by one individual, but this one is acting purely in good faith. He is new to Wikipedia and has shown an eagerness to learn and understand Wikipedia policy. To me, this is not a case of a SPA, just a new user trying to write about a subject they are passionate about. He has a good established history of asking for help and trying to learn, in my opinion this is not a SPA, but a good-faith editor trying to write an article on something he's passionate about. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition The article was deleted four times for various CSD criteria to include A7, and G11. It was nominated in this current form and was declined, (userfied), then moved back into the article space when it was more in line with guidelines. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Solarra: You are completely mistaken, the producer those refs are discussing is Focus... a widely known and notable producer, not this person. STATic message me! 06:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@STATicVapor: Easy mistake to make, that source is about the Dr Dre producer (as I said I know nothing about hip hop). However there are still many places out there that talk about this guy (at least I'm pretty sure they're talking about him, not Focus...). ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Solarra: Of those two sources, the first is a press release website and the second is a personal marketing website, most certainly not anything that would fall under WP:RS, or be considered significant independent coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 07:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this article and its variants Focus the Producer and Focus The Producer, to prevent a 6th deletion go-around since beginning of the year for this non-notable BLP. No substantial, independent reliable sources offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solarra as you remember when we entered into this discussion last night, I mentioned STATic had interest in another producer by the name of Focus of whom he claimed to know nothing about but yet here he is speaking of him. That proves my point exactly that he only wants the article on D'ron Forbes deleted because he has personal interests at hand. Claiming to have never worked on that article when I saw his name in the edit log of the Focus... article. That is proof that STATicVapor is in no way acting in the better needs of wikipedia but of who may be a close friend in this other producer. When someone has ran one of the top companies in the world as D'ron Forbes has for over 5 years and remains in top rankings all over the world, I think that is a notable aspect. When I decided to write begin writing articles on wikipedia I chose this guy because I saw people speaking very highly of him and many other things such as his high ranks in the Rockwilder battle arena. He is a top seller and a top battle producer in the world, the grounds for notability states that in major competitions if a person does not have to be ranked in the top 10 but make it to a notable point in that specific competition.

Also when it comes to notability wikipedia also mentions being the top in the country of origin for the profession, can you name another record producer from The Bahamas as big as this guy is? --LennyPerez44 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know of the other producer, most hip hop fans have. My only single edit to his article was on March 6, 2011‎ and have made tens of thousands edits since then, the article has never even been on my watchlist. You are acting quite ridiculous Lenny, I am no friend of him, but I am certain to believe you must be of D'ron Forbes to care this much about such a seemingly unknown producer and have such a vendetta against the similarly named producer. STATic message me! 00:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@STATicVapor: I simply spent a whole lot of time creating the article and building up the facts and would hate to see it deleted. Can you seriously tell me the owner of a website ranked in the top 75,000 websites in the united states is not notable?... Do you also mean to tell me that being a top selling and top battle winning producer on a powerhouse network ran by another notable entity is not notable within itself either? I can not understand why it would not be notable.

I have given you references to the facts that matter the most as well as references to the back up facts. You cannot really tell me there are grounds for eliminating this article. I am learning more about wikipedia everyday and will get into writing other things. Just as I learned how to ping you in this comment by paying attention I will learn how to create better articles. --LennyPerez44 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest that every owner of those 75,000 websites should have a Wikipedia article? I am sure less then 100 of them do. That is such a minor achievement it is hardly even worth mentioning. As for top selling and top battle winning, no reliable third party sources have been cited for that information. None of the references you cited are reliable, they are just minor low-level blogs and primary sources. I also like how you completely dropped the Focus... thing once I proved how wrong you were, you lost all credibility after you were grabbing at straws like that. STATic message me! 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that would establish notability. The sources in the article are a mix of primary sources and unreliable sources. I do not see that "there are still many places out there that talk about this guy" as asserted by @Solarra: above. My own search shows only more unreliable sources. I also concur with @STATicVapor: that the two sources offered are a press release, and marketing and fail to be independent. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2014 (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.