Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Theme

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. From arguments and the source analysis, it appears that references don't provide SIGCOV. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Theme

edit

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

Galactic Theme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. Sources are announcements of the album or unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 146 words articles from ThisDay does not constitute as in-depth coverage for me. Even though it has a byline, I have concerns that it is a paid job.

I have no opinion on whether London Daily News has on online presence after being defunct but the byline in this article clearly states that it was written by a “LDN Guest Post” aka contributor and is likely to have been written and submitted by the subject of the article.

This 193 words articles from Sheen Magazine credited the photo to Johnel. This is very, very likely to be a paid post.

This article on Teen Ink is clearly written by a contributor named Jon who’s profile there would remove any doubt of that being Johnel hence this fails WP:INDEPENDENT.

This articles reads like a press release to me and so fails INDEPENDENT. Further search shows that you can indeed submit a post to NMW for some few bucks (see here).

This compilation from Encomium reads just fine to me but cannot on itself establish notability as it is a marginally reliable source (according to WP:NGRS). Best, Reading Beans 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the artist is a Journalist too? Maybe you should include that in the main article and back it up with a reliable source if you think so.
Understandably, it's your opinion, but to assume and conclude that some of the sources are written by a notable artist himself and also disregard the sources that are obviously independent even when there is no indication in any of the sources that any payment was made nor it's an advertisement is just sad. This was submitted as a draft and accepted once with just one attempt because it's obviously notable. But it looks like until a 10,000-word written article from The New York Times or BBC is provided, then you might reconsider. 105.112.209.5 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can sign up here if you wish to contribute to Teen Ink. This shows how posts are ranked in Teen Ink. Liz, I am not implying that he is a journalist, I am saying that he is writing and submitting to these outlets! I don’t think that this needs rocket science to achieve. To the IP, a 10,000-word written article from The New York Times or BBC would make me to reconsider. Best, Reading Beans 09:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like more consideration of the sources here since opinion is divided. I don't think a similarity in names is any evidence that an 18 year old musician has somehow become a journalist. Let's assess their value and not assume this is autobiographical writing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am concerned about deletionism from the editors familiar with the Nigerian space. Different standards are obviously applied to independent sources. A lot of suppositions about articles being paid for, yet without evidence. There’s just too much arbitrariness or unilateralism applied. Unfortunately, articles about likely-notable subjects are constantly suppressed. I saw editors haggling over Deborah Paul Enenche as if she was obscure in Nigeria. We probably need to check why these editors with Nigerian background continue to suppress articles. Are they protecting a lucrative trade whilst at the same time alleging that subjects constantly pay media? I checked on Upwork and loads of Nigerians offering services for Wikipedia articles. 102.164.36.86 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have concerns about undisclosed paid editing, mail paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. I would also like you to note as in the case of Eneche and this subject here, popularity does not constitute notability (please, read WP:BIO and WP:GNG to fully understand how this works). Best, Reading Beans 01:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I figured I’d help the community out here. Previous attempt was misunderstood by Liz.
Source assessment table prepared by User:Reading Beans
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The author is labelled LDN Guest Yes The source is a noted book by a well-known author No {{ And now, with his latest release, ‘Galactic Theme,’ he’s embarked on a voyage that transcends musical borders, a journey that not only showcases his versatility and creativity, but also his ability to connect with listeners across the globe.}} This is the only mention of the album there. ✘ No
No No Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable. Please, see WP:GENIUS No ✘ No
Yes Yes per WP:NGRS No A 146-word article is not considered as significant coverage. ✘ No
Even though this page exist there’s no byline in these articles No Ditto. This time 193-words. ✘ No
No {{…the singer said in a press release.}}—curated from the article but said press release was not linked. WP:PRSOURCE I don’t consider this reliable per this link not really ✘ No
Yes ~ marginally reliable source per WP:NGRS No ✘ No
This is a user-generated post. No We don’t consider user-generated posts reliable. See WP:USERG. No per same reasons above—143-words. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Galactic_Theme&oldid=1246872612"