Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 28 December 2021

AJDaGuru

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

AJDaGuru (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)

Non-notable singer; reviewer that originally approved the article declined to draftify. I can't find any usable sources on Google (string: ajdaguru), and even before I gutted the article in an attempt to bring it into compliance with policy the sources were all bad, mostly being churnalism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 01:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The singer and musician is notable and his works has appeared in multiple magazines and meets the criteria here under number 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles the user Jéské Couriano has picked apart the article and basically ruined it by false claims of the paid press. Only god can say these pieces were paid for this is a keeper and the subject meets the criteria for notability. we have to understand that in the music industry this is how articles are written from a journalist's point of view. 100 percent of the time the journalist are fans of the artist so this is how the articles are written. The subject indeed is notable there is no reason to delete this. Misplaced Pages terms state a subject is notable if their works appear in multiple magazines or newspapers or online articles I see several from the subject. Again only God can say the articles were paid other than that. None of the sites offer such services to pay to be on their websites. This article should be kept the sources are not churnalism these journalists are fans of the artist and subject there is no way we can say that the subject is not notable.Godsentme1 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ] (] • ]) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
• Comment: All refs and much of the content was removed before the AfD was filed. I restored the content and refs. The value of the refs can be challendged as part of the AfD process, but those (and the content) should not have been removed first. However, after restoring the refs, I deleted two Song BPM refs that contributed nothing of value toward notability. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

David notMD It's too much going on here as I feel multiple accounts are being run and it's only one user doing all of this. At this point, there are over 5 accounts all attacking me which is run by one user on the site? How fair is that? Also simply because the article was erased like that and removed before being filed for an AFD proves that there is something extremely fishy going on. At this time I cannot believe that someone has the time to create and run multiple accounts and move like this on a site that is marked as the biggest encyclopedia in the world. The reviewer was never supposed to remove the content before the afd was filed? This game ends here I guess because now how am I supposed to go up against the power of the person who is behind all these accounts. I don't see that happening. The subject is notable I shouldn't have to go back and forth for hours about this when this was already accepted the first time. The user who accepted the first time said in the chat that it was borderline but definitely acceptable I say we take the deletion off and put it back. It may be borderline but the reviewer who accepted it even stated it was a pass and stated the previous reviewers who marked as declined made mistakes? So, please keep.Godsentme1 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: No one is running multiple accounts. The editor who deleted material from the article and is participating in the AfD is an extremely experienced editor who has a expert understanding of what are and what are not valid, reliable source references. Know the bar for notability. As I wrote on your Talk page, improve the article, but do not attack/suspect other editors. David notMD (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk) Ok you said you removed 2 references that don't contribute to notability, so why didn't you remove the other links if they are not notable? I want us to all participating in this to pay close attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles the subject is notable under criteria 1 Hip hop music websites and magazines report news from staff and editors on the site. The person who started the deletion stated staff articles can't be accepted but this is the music industry where staff and editors write about the music artist. I think if we were talking about a sports subject or science subject then that would be different. Anyone participating in this takes a moment and see for yourself that hip-hop magazines and online websites report news from staff and editors who are admins of the website. I think the problem we are having is that you guys are thinking some form of pay is happening for these articles when these are legit and written by journalists who are independent of the subject. A staff of a credible magazine works for the magazine so how can't we count these? Again no attacks, I strongly again believe this is a keeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsentme1 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Clearly fails WP:Musician, non-notable singer, no charts, most of references fails WP:RS. 2402:3A80:10DC:3DA5:4D55:92E8:2851:A008 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Reply - Because the two refs I deleted had no redeeming value whatsoever (a website that provides beats per minute for songs) while the others are questionable. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable individual, he's made music, but hasn't risen above the hundreds of others that have. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: You don't need charts to be notable per Misplaced Pages guidelines there are many musicians that are on Misplaced Pages and they have never charted. Per Misplaced Pages guidelines here under criteria 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles the subject is notable. The subject was already approved because the reviewer stated it was a pass and nothing has changed still a pass. Per Misplaced Pages guidelines subject works appeared in multiple magazine articles and online articles we can't overlook this. Artists that subject produced for have never charted and they have live Misplaced Pages's. The subject is being targeted for deletion when he is clearly a notable musician. Charts are not the only thing that makes you notable. One of the users who's saying the sources are questionable was the same user on my talk page congratulating me when the article was approved now is here saying to delete there is some conflict of interest going on and we need real reviewers to take a look at this. Please go to my talk page and see the same user who says delete he was on my talk page saying congratulations. His exact words were "Congratulations!!" "steep learning curve but you made it!" A clear example that this deletion does not need to exist. Please see my talk page for proof. A lot of bias and wrong things occurring towards the subject. No attacks I am giving cold facts at this point. Something needs to be done subject is notable. Under option one "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".Godsentme1 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Let us first deal with the AFC acceptance. As a reviewer myself I accept drafts that I believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process. Although some drafts never see the light of "day" in main space, as soon as the draft is accepted the community gets an opportunity to make a determination. The community is made up of many people. The reviewer who accepts a draft is one editor. All reviewers understand that their acceptance my be challenged at AfD. This is normal, and healthy. This acceptance has been challenged, whcih is why we are here
  The creating editor has made much of the fact that a reviewer accepted the draft. They need to get past that. This is now with the community to determine, and the actions of the highly experienced accepting reviewer are in the past, and are wholly irrelevant.
  There are multiple criteria in WP:NMUSICIAN that allow acceptance. I've studied each of those and studied the referencing used to cite the facts presented the article. I have compared the article and the referencing to NMUSICIAN, and am not persuaded that it meets any of the numbered criteria within it (modified for context as stated in the overall guide to it). Thus I am certain in my view that the article should not remain here. I believe it to be WP:TOOSOON.
  I recognise the creating editor's passionate attachment to their work. I am willing to reconsider if they either:
  * enhance the article to show compliance and show that it then complies (WP:HEY apples)
  * show clearly and briefly which numbered criterion they rely on and thereby change my mind
  I apologise for the length of my opinion (irony).
  tl;dr summary: The draft acceptance was in the past, and should be ignored. The article fails WP:NMUSICIAN. If it is improved to pass I can be persuaded to change my mind. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  I see they cite 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 above. I do not see it as passing that criterion. Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable at this time as per WP:NMUSICIAN. Should be re-draftified at the very least. Geordie (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I already asked the draft approver if they would do so; they explicitly endorsed AfD instead. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 00:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Geordie, @Jéské Couriano, the creating editor deserves a full community verdict on whether to keep or to delete. I oppose draftification of this article because it will simply delay the inevitable multiple further AFC declines (a painful process when there is no hope) or a rejection, which follows multiple declines and resubmissions where there is no hope. Far better to delete now, perhaps as a soft delete, without prejudice to re-creation when the subject gains notability. Fiddle Faddle 00:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I did my due diligence on the subject and all the sourcing I found were promotional pieces submitted by his marketing team. I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have his own Misplaced Pages article. Perhaps in the future! Wish him the best of success as a musician. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Promotional pieces submitted by his marketing team wow how do you come up with these theories? Anyhow keep the subject meets the musician criteria to belong on Misplaced Pages besides it's only been one day since it's been nominated for deletion everyone here is attacking and making claims when no marketing team put these out at least two articles from the subject meets the criteria it may borderline at the time but it's still passing. Definitely a keep again I'm looking to fix the article up a little so everyone just relax and stop attacking it how can you make these false claims that his marketing team put these out when he doesn't even have a marketing team just me here which is his manager so sad but keeper thanks.Godsentme1 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. May be notable in a few years, but as of present there's not enough significant coverage out there in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. It should also be mentioned that the user desperately trying to have the article kept is a disclosed paid editor on behalf of the article's subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: All claims made that he has worked with GLC, Chevy Woods, and King Chip; as well as featured on different magazines is also fake. I really have strong iiffy vibes that reviewer Primefac is involved in undisclosed paid editing here. 2402:3A80:10C1:96C1:E10D:BF8E:6476:8F06 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  You really think Primefac risked his reputation here for this article? Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject is notable they coming up here attacking the subject saying he didn’t work with Chevy Woods, King Chip, or GLC this is public information. I’m disappointing in these discussions. The musician is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.101.199 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — 76.1.101.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The accusations of racism here are completely off-base, as is the implied legal threat. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 07:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – it doesn't matter whether he has worked with notable people or not. Notability is not inherited. The sources are non-independent and/or puff pieces, and he clearly does not meet WP:NMUSIC much less WP:GNG. I have searched for better sources, but haven't found anything that would make him notable at this point. WP:TOOSOON. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but clearly they do not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICBIO. And as Bonadea as pointed out, notability is not inherited. Onel5969 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• The article is a case of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:The_Heymann_Standard and will be enhanced and improved the subject has been doing music since a very young age and has had national radio play across the world. I just need to plug the info in. Again the subject is notable I'm currently enhancing the article it's been two days since it was nominated for deletion it will be fixed with the proper information thank you. The article will comply it's just was another case of (WP:HEY apples) at the time but it's currently being fixed to meet and comply with Misplaced Pages standards.Godsentme1 (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  WP:HEY is an essay, neither policy nor a guideline, but it doesn't apply anyway. The article is not in better shape now than it was when it was nominated. If it is kept, it will have to be heavily pruned. But despite the ridiculous amount of detail, there is still no claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, the early life section is appallingly sourced garbage..."Noble Peace Prize'!! Whole section should be removed it gives zero support to any notability and frankly looks like absolute desperation by COI editor to pad the article out. Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – I could have sworn I voted here earlier but apparently not. Subject is a non-notable musician. The bludgeoning and disruption here doesn't make a great case for keeping either, plus I was on IRC while they were (and Jéské too) and the threats (both legal and not) and personal attacks issued there meant that they eventually got kicked. Thanks for blocking, GN – this is a waste of time. Giraffer 19:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I've created a source assessment table at Talk:AJDaGuru to help the article creator understand what we're looking for. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears as though there's a concerted effort to fabricate sources to try and save the article. See https://bridgemusicmagazine.com/ajdaguru-is-one-of-the-hardest-working-musicians-in-the-game/ and then compare (only snapshot is from Boxing Day) and (No "editorial staff" link or identifiable authors until the next crawl on Boxing Day). —A little blue Bori v^_^v 09:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This has been WP:TOOSOON from the beginning. At one point there was mention of a not-yet-released album. Perhaps try again after that is released and reviewed. David notMD (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Big keep: Go look at the articles talk page I see editor pointed out over 5 pages that’s on Misplaced Pages right now that don’t belong on the platform and is not notable. Something fishy is going on.🐠 If Ajdaguru is not notable then 75 percent of these articles on the website is not notable. I seen from my own two eyes 👀 articles with dead links and one reference including interviews of subjects. But I see the editor being told that he can’t use interviews. There is a ton of bias things happening here and the subject has been played on national radio. I’m back again to say something is wrong here stop attacking the editor and subject and keep the article. Look at the articles editor pointed out on the talk page go see for yourself half those articles can’t contend with Ajdaguru. Misplaced Pages should not be bias if they are going to be bias then get rid of this website because that’s not what a encyclopedia is built on.

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates