Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sintax the Terrific

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 Snow Keep. ~~.... and before some loon one suggests it I'm not a member of the "Christian music project" either!.,~~ Consensus is to keep

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sintax the Terrific

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

This artist fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). The artist has not recorded with a major record label or a notable independent label. The sources provided either are not independent of the subject or do not provide in depth coverage of the subject. While the Houston Chronicle is a good source, the coverage is from the local lifestyle section and can not be considered significant coverage. This article should be deleted. 4meter4 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First off, I don't understand how a local lifestyle section of the Houston Chronicle would be unreliable (note that this piece was written for the main section, not the journalist's blog for the paper). But leaving that aside, you have the article on CMusicWeb.com, and The Rap Up and Holy Culture articles (I will lump these together since they are written by the same journalist, but in different publications). Then you have the five different reviews by four different reliable sources, all of which discuss the artist himself, not just the album.

I am pinging other editors who would be interested in this discussion:

Ilovechristianmusic, Walter Görlitz, Royalbroil, and Amberrock.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I will also add this review from a now defunct, but reliable, website (this Wordpress version seems to be an alternate, archive version of the site). It doesn't discuss Sintax the Terrific much, but it is a critique of his work.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as noted by The Cross Bearer below, Sintax was featured in HM in the 2007 January/February issue. Looking through archive.org, it looks like that feature was print-only. It does exist, though, which is what is required for notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Ted talk is enough for notability, where they don't just let anyone get up and speak for them, using their branding in order to publicize the event. You have to earn the right to do a Ted talk.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure - this was a TEDx talk, and that's not hard to arrange. Those are student-led efforts that aren't the same as TED talks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: I remember watching a 60 Minutes piece about them, but I could have forgotten it by now. I will provide another rationale. This article should be Kept because his music has been reviewed by such publications as Cross Rhythms magazine and a Metacritic based source in RapReviews.com.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: See if you can get the HM Magazine article, mentioning him on CMnexus.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in print. I have no idea who might have the print edition of that issue. There's probably some other print magazines with features on him, but I don't know what they would be or how to access them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets
WP:GNG. All attempts at discounting local interest have failed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as this still seems convincing enough and I would've closed it as such myself. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Walter's rationale. Royal broil 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Released two albums on the indie label illect, which has been in operation more than a decade. Write-up in the Houston Chronicle. Meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). — Maile (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little concerned that everyone pinged to this article seem to be members of the Christian music project EDIT TO ADD: or have a particular interest in Christian music, have Christian userboxes, have usernames indicating an interest in Christian music, etc. END OF EDIT I mean, I totally understand that these would be people particularly interested in articles about Christian musicians, but it almost looks like stacking the deck. I'd like to see some opinions from people who are experienced at assessing notability for musicians but don't have any particular rooting interest in seeing a specific type of music thoroughly covered. valereee (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of that project. As far as I can tell, not all the above are either. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maile,~~ and you weren't pinged here. I think you're the only one not pinged here who has so far ivoted. You're in agreement with the rest of the ivoters, and I assume you're familiar with the rules for notability for musicians, so it's reassuring that you agree with those who were pinged here. I want to emphasize that I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything intentionally; of course anyone would assume people who had an interest in Christian music would be interested in this AfD. I just want to make sure we get input from people who are familiar with musician notability and don't have any particular interest in Christian music more than any other kind of music. valereee (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Shoot, sorry, Maile66 valereee (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You are wrong. I also pinged Amberrock, who was the first editor to express doubts about this article's notability. I did this expressly in order to avoid canvassing. Why Amberrock has not commented here I don't know, but I wanted them to know that this discussion is taking place. Also, if you go through past AfDs, you will see that Walter, myself, and The Cross Bearer have disagreed with each other at times.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I tried to think of some more editors that I've encountered in AfDs, but couldn't think of any others on the spot. I also figured that some of the regular patrollers of AfDs will have a balanced perspective. For instance, SwisterTwister also commented above, and they weren't pinged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, sorry, I want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting you did anything sly. valereee (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand, I just wanted to make it clear that I did foresee a possible imbalance and took efforts to help avoid that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:15, 20 March 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.