Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JPEGMAFIA

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 that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JPEGMAFIA

[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)

Subject appears to fail MUSICBIO. Strikerforce^Talk 16:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, the nominator did not describe WHY he/she thinks the rapper fails WP:MUSICBIO. Second, you can clearly see that the article has several references (though note that a few are repeats) to in-depth articles in reliable publications like Pitchfork, Stereogum, and The Fader, among others. If the nominator thinks those are not enough for at least a stub article, more explanation is needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject meets item 1 of MUSICBIO, but fails the rest. The first ten pages or so of a Google search are dominated by links to announcements about performances by the subject and where to buy their works. Strikerforce^Talk 19:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing near the top of a Google search is an indication of the popularity of the site, not the quality of its content nor the notability of the person described. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's take that argument this way and say that a reliable source would also, it stands to reason, be highly regarded in terms of "popularity of the site" and be near the top of a Google search, wouldn't you think? Strikerforce^Talk 19:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't think that. Do you have proof that being reliable makes a site rise up the ranks in Google's mysterious algorithm? But don't even bother because nowhere in the Wikipedia notability requirements can I find any statement that a subject is non-notable because reliable sites don't appear in a given place in Google search results. Besides, we have gotten pretty far away from my vote, for which I actually read some of the sources already cited in the article without being distracted by where they appeared in a list of Google junk. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnycraig888 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not only are the sources on the article clearly reliable (and non-trivial), the first page or two of Google results alone turns up things like substantive articles from Vice[1] and the L.A. Times[2] (neither of these references are currently in the article; I may do that later). Could the nominator explain why this is not enough for notability? Gilded Snail (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the previous comment. In addition, this artist has received coverage from reviewers like Pitchfork[3] which cater to an international audience. Vitomontreal (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. When searching for information on this artist I'd obviously want to come to Wikipedia first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.228.87 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 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.