Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Anthony

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. My only comment is that a future AFD might be considered in a few months' time to see if coverage is

WP:BLP1E. But do not immediately renominate this article for AFD2 if you don't care for this closure, please, we don't need an automatic repeat of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oliver Anthony

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

Oliver Anthony (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)

Lack of sustained notability (

WP:SUSTAINED) and lack of evidence of wide public acclaim, even within his subfield of country music, other than that a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.") and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper". Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • The individual in question has the #1 country song on iTunes, almost half a million Instagram followers, and almost 725k TikTok followers, so this artist is past the point of being “gamed by a few buying many copies each”. This page would be a relevant add, as any chart-topping artist should have a Wikipedia page for reference. I doubt anyone could generate this much buzz, gain this many new followers, and have a #1 hit on iTunes erroneously. What a coincidence that all would have to be. AlexJMPR (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
iTunes ranking does not matter. See
WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Neither do any of those others, which are also gameable. Do you have something that isn't gameable like concert attendance figures? He's had a concert. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:MUSICBIO -
Meets #1:
https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail is not a reliable source (
WP:DAILYMAIL
) and shouldn't be used here or in the article.
#1 isn't met as the Billboard article is the only one that has him as half of the topic of the article rather than just background information about the sole stated topic of the other articles, which is one of his songs. That might support the notability of the Rich Men North of Richmond article. They don't support his being notable enough to have his own article separate from the song article, if that's the only thing they've seen fit to write articles about.
It should also be noted that the reason for not redirecting the article to Rich Men North of Richmond was the invalid criteria proposed by the person who closed that discussion of "Right now Oliver Anthony has the top 3 on iTunes all genres, half of the top 10, half of the top 14 and 15 of the top 50. Clearly he’s much more than the song itself, although that also deserves an article. These stats also mean that it’s absurd to suggest, even for a moment, that he’s not notable enough for an article, so I deleted that hatnote." and "There is a separate article for the song, and it’s fairly obvious that this man is not just going to be famous, he is already. It’s time this discussion was closed."
That's invalid because of
WP:MUSICBIO being one article by Billboard. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. You are obviously not aligned with his political ideology and this is the sole purpose of you're attempt to have the page removed. You have nothing better to do with your time. 211.170.54.36 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, we don't use political ideology when deciding if a source is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your biases could not be more obvious if you wore them on a t-shirt. Keep. 2601:3C2:8281:9DD0:9C72:D7C4:C8C3:74E3 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Size Large please. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO -
Meets #1:
https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a bit of a waste to have to have to point out that I responded to a comment that seems to be quite similar to this above. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reply on this thread was to CJ-Moki. AlexJMPR (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability seems well supported by a variety of reliable secondary sources (Rolling Stone, Daily News, NBC News, Colorado Springs Gazette) in the article and here (some sources here don't appear in the article, and should be added. Not it!). signed, Willondon (talk)
Those sources are about one of his songs, which already has an article at Rich Men North of Richmond. While I agree that these may support the notability for that article, they aren't about the artist, mentioning him solely in service of talking about the song.
The exception is that the Colorado Springs Gazette's republishing of a Washington Examiner article also "simply report[s] performance dates" and stats that fail
WP:MUSICBIO. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The news articles mentioned on this discussion page and the wiki article discuss the artist and his background, hence why the claims made in the wiki article are justly backed up and cited. You do not get to gatekeep what qualifies as relevant information as it relates to notability within an article. These articles all attest to his notability, with millions of views across many popular streaming platforms; his notability is real and you will loose on denying it. Joemama46 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG and SIGCOV per examples above, just because he is new does not mean he is not notable. At this rate, he will continue to gain more notability soon enough as well and likely remain relevant for long enough to meet WP:SUSTAINED, so at most I would say to at least move to a draft for the time being until the article is expanded more with the soufces listed above. Deletion is pointless this early on when he will almost inevitably clearly meet notability standards soon enough. Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Rolling Stone [1] is an ok-ish source, and Billboard [2] is about half a source. We'd need one more solid ref to keep this, but I can't find one. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It's reasonable to expect he will meet WP:SUSTAINED, but he's not there yet. There is no shortage of outlets covering him at the moment, including The A.V. Club, NBC News, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, so shortage of reliable sources is not the issue. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to the article existing once notability (of the artist, not just the one song) is met. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the political angle, hes a musician and he has gained a lot of notability from that. Hes been covered by Billboard and Rolling Stones in articles and has gotten notable recognition from people within the country music world. Both John Rich and Jamey Johnson have spoken about collaborating with him since his video came out.
"and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper"."
And this is just you making up a scenario without even bothering to attempt to back it up. No reason to take this article down. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how this works. It needs to be proven that he is notable, not that he isn't notable. The articles I've seen so far, except for one, have been primarily about his song, not about him, because it's his song that's notable, not him. That definitely supports keeping the article about the song, but not the article about him personally. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made several points in your original post that hold no real water to them but are pure speculation. Either way its been 10 days still and articles are still being written about him and his song in major publication. Even across the pond his song is topping the charts and there is a BBC article about him. Almost all the articles are about both Oliver Anthony and "Rich Men North of Richmond"Friedbyrd (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet all of the above discussion has resulted from this one inexperienced editor taking it upon his or herself to nominate the article for deletion. Which resulted in the article itself being hit with a massive hatnote about being nominated for deletion.
Conclusion: this discussion merits nothing less than a very Speedy closure. The current situation is an absurdity. Must it be strung out any further? Boscaswell talk 02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations done in good faith with a
WP:SK.) SWinxy (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong keep. When phenomena such as this happen, there can be valid
    notability standards for music
    , does not deter from my previous points.
I believe the nominator Chai T. Rex has brought in an unfortunate bias to his/her request, political and otherwise, and that "a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public" is a laughable and simplistic understatement beaming with a grumbling those dang conservatives type of hubris; while "a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music" is a baseless accusation that makes Anthony appear as an inorganic industry plant, which... goes completely against his ethos and why he rose to sudden stardom. How can someone be an industry plant if they are not even a part of the music industry, and even still might not yet be? How can such an explanation accommodate the fact that Anthony had never intended for himself as a musician to reach this level of fame, especially so quickly? Also, why does Rex use so much generalization and even, dare I say, conspiracy theorizing here?
Also,
personal attack and is unacceptable here. #64, please see your user talk page if you have not already. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per current news coverage. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 16:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A little over two hours ago, Anthony entered the
    WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Launchballer 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep What in the world. --193.121.16.254 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of articles like this one on Wikipedia. The only reason this one is up for deletion is because of its "controversy." Let it stay, there's worse things out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.134.242 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the song is terrible and the guy himself seems unremarkable - but, objectively, he's a present figure now and probably will be for a while, so there's no reason to get rid of the article, especially because it would make the article on the song much more cluttered to include all this info. Also, if it did turn out he was an 'industry plant' (which I doubt even though his political fanbase is annoying), that wouldn't suddenly mean he shouldn't have an article RapescoStapler (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources covering him already for the article to meet the necessary requirements. These come from a wide spectrum of media outlets, casting into doubt the nominator's claim that his notability is being artificially pushed by a small segment. Additionally, many of these sources include a personal focus on him, and not just on the song "Rich Men North of Richmond," serving as the basis for information included in this article that fits better here than in the article for the song. MojaveSummit (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don’t understand why it should be deleted at all. He is an artist with multiple songs. There are far more esoteric articles on this platform. I believe that those wanting deletion are politically motivated and I’m a left leaner however I strongly believe in the first amendment. Stop trying to silence truth please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.127.18.45 (talk) 01:53, August 20, 2023 (UTC)
  • Redirect to
    WP:BIO1E: he's known for his song, Rich Men North of Richmond, and nothing else. BIO1E is an important exemption to GNG. SWinxy (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well, the discussion in the media has now moved on to Oliver Anthony's role in right-wing popular culture, e.g. New York Magazine, The Washington Post, so per
WP:BIO1E is not appropriate for someone like him, since he is likely not to become known for only one song, because a number of his songs may chart on Billboard (we will know in a few days), and he also has an EP, and there will likely be an album and a tour. It is almost certain that coverage of him will expand to other events. Even if he remains a one-hit wonder, articles for of one-hit wonder artists are common because of their significance in popular culture, especially if he can reach No. 1 in the charts. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep - Even if the ends up being a one-hit wonder like the Macarana or the Harlem Shake, it definitely has that zeitgeisty important feel to it. Jjazz76 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oliver_Anthony&oldid=1171740433"