Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (3rd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 14 April 2018 (→Prakash Neupane: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:41, 14 April 2018 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→Prakash Neupane: Closed as delete (XFDcloser))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 delete. Sandstein 11:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Prakash Neupane

AfDs for this article:
Prakash Neupane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources are either unreliable or self-published. The page has been repeatedly created under various titles by multiple users, and subsequently deleted via AfD and CSD. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt persistent efforts to push a non-notable bio in for years should be rewarded. Alternative outlets for promotion exist. Misplaced Pages is not the right place. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suspect there's an element of systemic bias here, because there are a lot of sources in Nepali which are about him. However, I found this which I presume is reliable, and says that he has 2m+ views on YouTube and has released three albums. This article, from ABC Nepal TV, confirms that claim (Google translate - "His songs are seen two million times in YouTube, and the song "You Got Me" is seen more than a million times. His songs are very popular among the Nepali youth"). This is a YouTube video showing a (longish) interview with him on Nepal TV. His music is all on ITunes, Amazon and all the other main platforms. His music videos are professionally shot. The language issue is indeed an issue, but I'm pretty sure that if a Western artist had coverage like this they wouldn't be at AfD in the first place, because WP:MUSICBIO#1 would have been said to have been met. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Anyone can get their music published on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify etc, that's not notable. It appears that New York City Post is not a reliable source, consisting of submitted press releases to it's Gmail account. I don't believe they even have an editorial staff, and can't even find any third party articles about the New York City Post. Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article on them and Google searches aren't actually very helped. Seems to another unreliable source. That ABC article doesn't appear to be an article about it as much as it is a thinly disguised press release/advert for the singer's new album, it has no content. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps weak keep - all sources seem to be in the form of press releases or some variant of self published. It's worrying that there appears to be a sock farm dedicated to publishing articles like this and interconnected ones. Non-notable publisher, and looking at their music videos, while they may be professionally produced it appears based on the comments that the viewing is largely of the attractive woman in swimsuit variety. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So you think a Western musical act (or indeed any BLP) with 2m+ Youtube views and national TV interviews would be deleted? And I would point out that the "attractive woman in swimsuit" video is pretty common in rap and R&B on this side of the planet, as well. My concern is that this is being deleted purely because of the restrictions on Nepali press - a singer of similar stature in a Western country would not only be kept, but would never have appeared here in the first place. But anyway, here is his song with 856K YouTube views. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Youtube views do not denote notability. I think after looking over WP:MUSICBIO#1 and 12 that the documentary broadcast on NTV may be the only thing that is making it notable. The other references and coverage are not notable, but the interview on NTV does show important and does meet a notability criteria, but I believe is the only thing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • They don't denote notability, but they indicate it. You don't rack up 856K views on one video through random viewing. I think the only difference here is that local reliable sources are far more difficult to track down (not to mention to translate) and - very much like Indian media - they rely far more than Western ones on reprinting press releases and interviews etc. from other sources. Also, the "big" papers in Asia tend not to cover music too well. But, in the end, it is what it is. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It would appear to me that the least worst solution would be to send the article back into draftspace, and ask for input from editors familiar with Nepali news media. That may already have happened. Perhaps it should happen again.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that the only thing we can do is to blow this up and if he's notable a neutral non-COI editor can start afresh if that seems desirable. We are not here to serve paid editors and the lack of sources is not the only issue here. The article was created by an IP address who's only edit was to create this article and then desperately asking Graeme Bartlett to review it followed by multiple IP from a range, (which has been previously noted by Mz7, to be used by the sock-farm) and users who are now blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
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.