Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex "The Hex" Master

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion about a potential page move to change the article's name can continue on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lex "The Hex" Master

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

Insufficient material to risk having a WP:BLP. ~~No evidence of meeting any of the twelve criteria of WP:MUSBIO. No charting records.~~ Very little third-party coverage. The Allmusic bio is better than nothing but not convincing and certainly not enough to base a WP:BLP on. I'm willing to be convinced, but present content is marginal at best. David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The EP clearly charted quite well, so I'm inclined to change my opinion to keep - though maybe it should be an article on the EP, either title is fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the allmusic bio is a reliable source and the foxforcefivenews review is significant coverage and seems to be a reliable source at least for music reviews, the other references are to confirm facts rather than sig cov, nearly all the material in the article is verified by the sources and anything that is not can be removed, he has a new album out soon so there should be other sources available which would of course be very helpful if other editors can supply them. Think this article is verifiable as a stub until extra sources allow it to be expanded, not sure whether he has charted but IMO the article just passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review WP:BLP. Literally every statement in a living bio needs to be citable. If this article were culled down to literally just the statements supported by those two sources (and AllMusic is almost certainly not a WP:RS for biographical purposes), it would be exceedingly short. Is there anything more substantial now, or is this a WP:NOTYET? - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Allmusic bios are reliable sources for biographies see the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionheart (band) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been considered a good argument at AFD, and your link is mostly you asserting that Allmusic is sufficient and others responding "what on earth" - David Gerard (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Editors Michig (talk · contribs) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) supported that allmusic bio is reliable source, though increased sources are of course better. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Not, however, for WP:BLP purposes. I urge you again to read that policy - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure which part of the policy you are referring to, allmusic is not selfwritten by the subject and the bio is about the music career and not any personal matters that are contentious which I agree would be best left out, but musical history rather than personal life is not so contentious. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's being asserted that AllMusic can't be used in BLP's, then that would be wrong. There's no such consensus for that sort of interpretation on it as a source at the music/album WikiProjects. Anything in the prose is fair game for use on Wikipedia, including proving notability. (Just stay away from their infoboxes/ genre boxes.) However, the thought that AllMusic alone would be enough for it to pass the WP:GNG would also be erroneous. You'd need multiple sources, and likely more than usual to make sure there aren't unsourced BLP claims. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd concur with all that - it's a usable source, but it doesn't swing WP:MUSBIO, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, and I'd be very wary of it as a WP:BLP source - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no precedence for withholding its use for notability towards BLPs - but otherwise we seem to be on the same page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not enough substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion process, this article was at first a BLPProd which said that all that is needed to stop this article being deleted was the addition of at least one reliable source, then I added two and two other refs and since then its been prodded and taken to afd which seems to contradict the spirit of the BLPProd. If this is going to happen regularly the wording of the BLP prod needs to be changed to warn that other deletion processes can still occur as at present it is misleading and particularly when some editors add a Prod notice at the same time as a BLPProd notice. This advice is given on the Prod notice sent to the authors but not on the BLPProd notice or the message sent. Also, its important the notice on the article is clear about this as a large number of editors including senior ones choose not to inform the author at all, I note that you do inform them which is best practice. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the article I agree that more sources would be best so will have another thorough search later on today, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific, SwisterTwister, as "not enough substance" is not in itself a valid deletion rationale. Do you mean not enough sourcing? Not enough substance in the sources? Not enough content in the article? That latter would be a valid rationale for a merge or redirect, but an article being short isn't a valid deletion rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "needs moar" one presumes - there's twelve listed criteria in WP:MUSBIO and the closest I can see that this swings is no. 9, with an album and EP on an indie label that may be notable (has had actual hits, though this artist hasn't). But as I said, I'm willing to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no substance for actually convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably word your stances closer to something involving not passing the WP:GNG and/or lacking independent sourcing if that's what you mean then. Your initial comment sounds more like a WP:NOTCLEANUP violation... Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after a very long search, the positive news is that Billboard record that his EP peaked at 49 on the billboard independent albums chart which I think means he passes WP:NMUSIC by passing criteria 2 (only one criteria needed). On a negative side, could not find any extra sigcov only mentions. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent news! If you can add the Billboard cite to that, the EP passes basic notability, and the artist probably does - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added the Billboard cite referred to above (the EP in question also seems to have reached #10 on the Heatseekers chart), and now as far as I'm concerned this scrapes by WP:MUSIC 2. Fosse 8► 15:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheers to Fosse8 for finding the chart entry for the EP. I've changed my mind to marginal keep. Maybe it should be at the EP title, and it needs a de-promoing rewrite, but I'm satisfied he probably passes basic notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:31, 17 August 2016 (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.