Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snak the Ripper (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. After three full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has ensued herein. North America1000 08:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snak the Ripper

AfDs for this article:

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

Snak the Ripper (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)

Semi-advertorialized

blogs and directory entries with not nearly enough properly reliable coverage in real media shown.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations site where people are entitled to have Wikipedia articles at their own personal demand. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just a note for anyone who wants to go looking that you might find something looking for Stealth Bomb Records. I didn't find anything helpful but I really did only the barest search. -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG with SIGCOV in numerous outlets on the first two pages of Google News. straight.com [1], sootoday.com [2], Nanaimo News Bulletin [3], Hip-hop Canada [4] Also, I think the nom has the wrong COI claim. User EthanWiki does not appear to be a COI at all, however, we do have contributions from user SnakTheRipper, who has only edited this article and who is blocked. Regardless, GNG is met, SNGs are therefore irrelevant. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More coverage here in Vice [5]. Overall, this subject is much more notable than during the 2010 AfD, with a lot of coverage about a beef with Madchild around 2015 that can be added to the article. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty much a textbook fail of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO to boot. Sourcing is a mess of blogs and editorially questionable fansites, there's no evidence of "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." and it's at that first and most basic test that we fall. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not looking specifically at sources in the article. We're looking at if they
    EXIST, and I have provided 5 sources that I feel can be used to meet GNG. Can you please comment on those? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 11:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment These sources are hyper-local and I can't see they amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources". The Vice mention is a passing mention specifically about 'the beef that’s erupted between Madchild and Snak the Ripper' and I cannot see how having beef with Madchild is evidence of an enduring impact on the world of music. Quite apart from WP:GNG, we also have some beef meeting the subject specific guidelines, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." I'd also appreciate keeping the discussion here and off my talk page. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNG's text says Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 12:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We certainly don't have a rule that local sources are forbidden, but we do have a rule that purely local coverage isn't enough to pass GNG if it's virtually all that a person actually has. Local newspapers cover local figures in contexts that don't meet an encyclopedic standard of notability all the time — candidates in city council elections, presidents of local parent-teacher associations, high school athletes, local bands playing at local pubs, and on and so forth — so that level of coverage isn't necessarily enough to get a person over GNG all by itself. GNG isn't just "count the sources and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number" — GNG does take into account the notability or non-notability of the context of what any given source is covering the person for, and discounts some sources as not helping to build notability if they aren't covering the person in notable contexts. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; touring and shows have recieved some press[6][7][8][9]. Other additional sources, such as those from Exclaim![10] and The Chronicle-Journal[11], when combined with the above sourcing, pushes the subject past GNG imo. I see coverage spanning from 2010[12] until 2022[13]. Mbdfar (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete never had a charted single, no releases on a major record brand. I don't think the sources above are enough for wp:music #1. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. General coverage clearly exists and has been posted above. If the sourcing in the article is bad or if the article is promotional, then fix it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to add to the discussion, there appears to be some consensus emerging for keeping the article on the basis of
    WP:NOTABILITY. If they do have merit as significant coverage, however, the article should be kept due to the subject’s notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well, that's the problem, because the sources presented above are the same sources as those already in the article and that there search of Exclaim! - a blog/website with no editorial oversight I can see, curated by 'Ontario Creates' is neither a WP:RS or even carries WP:SIGCOV (three video links, a tour announcement and a short review of 'Sex Machine'). Now if we're calling Hip Hop Canada or the Sarajevo Times RS, then the Hip Hop Canada piece is that self same tour announcement and the 2015 Sarajevo Times piece calls Snak famous because he was '2nd on the Hip Hop list of iTunes for three weeks' and is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website. And then there's the Vernon Morning Star piece - an interview in a hyper-local paper with the subject's promoter. So I really can't see an argument to support WP:GNG passing RS OR SIGCOV!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth
WP:RSMUSIC and does have an editorial team([14]). Also "Sarajevo Times piece ... is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website" - Sarajevo Times is also a Bosnian publication. Sarajevo is in Bosnia. What's wrong with Bosnia? Mbdfar (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the sources presented both in the article and during this discussion for reliability, independence, and depth of coverage of this subject would be very helpful in determination of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/entertainment/lifestyle-change-leads-to-music-career-for-hip-hop-artist-snak-the-ripper/ Yes Yes Owned by Black Press ~ Based on an interview with the subject, but contains some secondary context ~ Partial
https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/local-entertainment/hip-hop-artist-encourages-fans-to-believe-in-themselves/ Yes Yes Also owned by Black Press Yes Significant secondary context with quotes from subject ✔ Yes
https://www.sootoday.com/local-entertainment/snak-the-ripper-is-feelin-the-love-on-the-road-679277 Yes Yes Owned by Village Media No Basically a concert advertisement, hodgepodging social media posts from the subject. ✘ No
https://hiphopcanada.com/snak-the-ripper-let-it-rip-album/ Yes Yes Yes Has SIGCOV of an album released by the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.chroniclejournal.com/entertainment/music_scene/snak-the-ripper-rises-from-the-dirt/article_4951f5ac-1d13-11e6-85d8-6bbf046386fa.html Yes Yes Owned by Continental Newspapers Yes ✔ Yes
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/Snak_the_Ripper_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1148295635"