Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Randell (musician)

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Randell (musician)

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

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, no coverage of him that I could find. Sources are somewhat shaky at best. JC7V (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources show significant coverage mostly by way of his Rise EP. Is the page perfect? No. Does it have enough notability to stay? I believe so, by a slim margin. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Willsome429, That seems like WP:COAT. The Huffpost piece was only by a contributor and AXS isn't a site to show notability. And no, there isn't enough high quality sources for him, mostly for his album or PR type pieces. It's a shame that we allow articles like this to stand when he obviously isn't notable. JC7V (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. The sources are poor. Especially the Bolderbeat source, which says on its "about us" page: "if you're a band looking for some interwebs press, hit us up..." Sources like that, soliciting bands to promote themselves, make the article seem like it's reaching pretty deep to dredge up something. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator, The huffpost article should establish notability, its not an interview even! regarding other sources that are not that credible, well I have removed the Bolderbeat source, if its causing an issue. Regrading the axs' credibility, axs is basically examiner.com, and if examiner/axs is not notable how come it has a Wikipedia page?. I am open to any modification required to meet any guideline that has not been met. Pisaspaatii (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, Pisaspaatii (talk), per wikipedia guidelines and multiple reviews, Examiner.com has been identified as a user contributed content farm and as such is not considered a reliable source. Having a wikipedia entry doesn't change that fact. As for AXS as a separate entity from Examiner.com, it is merely an event/venue promotional service. Content from it is the result of using the service and can not be considered independent, third party coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments on sources above. Regarding the Huffington Post piece: it's worth noting that earlier this year they closed down their unpaid contributor function, cited it had grown to over 100,000 writers contributing unveted content such as this. See: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/huffington-post-ends-unpaid-contributor-blogger-program-1202668053/ . Bottom line: Huffington Post "contributor" (rather than staff) articles are not reliable sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2018 (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.