Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (2nd nomination)

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. Considering a reevaluation of the first discussion after discounting the comments of sockpuppets, and the discovery of a likely paid editing operation, as well as drafts of the article being repeatedly rejected, there is an overwhelming consensus that this person is not sufficiently notable to qualify for inclusion. I am closing the discussion early per WP:SNOW. Owing to the disruption caused by the sockfarm, the title will be salted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bmcabana SF

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

Recently recreated article about an artist which does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Full disclosure, this subject has had a history of sockpuppetry in the AFC space see the history at Draft:Bmcabana SF to the point of the draft space being salted. If this subject is deemed not sufficiently notable for inclusion I do recommend salting this title as well. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) ~~20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)~~20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as per my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF, this is a restart of that discussion, which was badly disrupted by IP's, new accounts, single purpose accounts. I have recreated the AfD (as a 2nd nomination) using the original nomination statement, above; I have re-timestamped the comment in line with the creation of this AfD. This discussion page will be semi-protected, per my notes at the close of AfD1. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a neutrally-worded request for further input from administrators & experienced editors at AN, considering the nature of my close of the previous discussion. See diff. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition to the comments above: since salting Draft:Bmcabana SF, a draft has been created at Draft:Bmcabana-SF. This draft was twice turned down at AfC, followed by the article being created directly in mainspace. Fully support salting of all variations of this title. --John B123 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sondz.com/artist/Bmcabana-SF?gid=dc41a0a9-f76d-4dfe-89f4-091031cda058	Page is leading to an error			✘ No
https://hypemagazine.co.za/music/upcoming-rapper-from-polokwane-015/			It's a single line	✘ No
https://reviewonline-epaper.products.caxton.co.za/wp-content/ftp/epaper_uploads/58/Bonus_Review_29_April_2021/Bonus_Review_29_April_2021.pdf			Feel good article about up and coming local artist not much for details.	✘ No
https://roodepoortrecord-epaper.products.caxton.co.za/wp-content/ftp/epaper_uploads/17/Roodepoort_Record_21_May_2021/Roodepoort_Record_21_May_2021-1.pdf			Feel good article about up and coming local artist not much for details	✘ No
https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/sebenza-live/2021-07-13-muso-reaps-rewards-after-using-nsfas-cash-to-fund-career/	It's an interview of the subject.			✘ No
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/limpopo/pupils-protest-over-school-chairs-1917167			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://reviewonline.co.za/58546/learners-left-in-the-lurch-at-luthuli/			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://reviewonline.co.za/449228/talent-hunter-productions-presents-the-centre-stage-limpopo-talent-competition/		This is a reprint of a press release	Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://www.dailysun.co.za/News/thugs-hide-in-abandoned-house-20200623			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://buckrollbeats.com/	This is a sales site.			✘ No
https://www.miramax.com/movie/Tsotsi/		This is the film site which does not list the subject or mention him.		✘ No
https://www.shapeslewisham.co.uk/badraccoonmedia/		Business listing		✘ No
https://www.sagoodnews.co.za/when-the-going-is-tough-the-tough-get-going/		This looks to be a personal blog by some guy named Steuart, lacking effective editorial oversight.		✘ No
https://briefly.co.za/49573-angry-seshego-community-members-burn-shop-anti-crime-protest.html			does not mention the subject at all	✘ No
https://hypemagazine.co.za/music/bmcabana-talks-partnership-with-tunecore-and-acting/		This site accepts content from anyone, no indication of effective editorial oversight.		✘ No
https://twitter.com/bmcabanasf	it's Twitter			✘ No
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}}.

This assessment table was not assessed on all source links provided, some of the links have been improved, The ASSESSMENT WAS BEFORE THE SECOND NOMINATION, I would advise to go assess the sources from the article, this assessment is was conducted by one user firstZefu zungu (06:44 PM, 05 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates I have added in the new references from the article to the table. If anyone disagrees with any of the assessments they are free to disagree and post the reasons as the table is meant to act as a gauge of consensus. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist did an interview with the south african news giant The Sowetan [1] and its a reliable source. the newspaper is also available on pressreader.comZefu zungu (11:01 PM, 04 August 2021 (UTC)

The WP:GNG requires multiple third party sources. An interview would be a single first party one. That's not enough. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't appear any of their music has noticeably charted, and most of what is documented on the article is minor, local stuff. (Performed a local show, was an extra in a TV show, etc.) I don't see how the WP:GNG is met. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. I can't find sources to support any of the criteria at WP:SINGER. The filmography credits don't meet WP:ENT and there is insufficient independent coverage for WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly people who're willing to do an end-run around our rules to make this article exist, so after we've (inevitably) deleted it, we need to create-protect this title and all its likely variants.—S Marshall T/C 09:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly devoid of actual significant coverage in reliable independent sources. What coverage is significant is either not reliable or not independent, and vice-versa. Many references have no indication why they are connected to this person at at all. Garden variety WP:REFBOMBing to prop up a non-notable musician article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG at this point. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to Mcmatter for the source assessment; it demonstrates the issue (the missing dead page is an in-house artist listing). There's not nearly enough here to satisfy either GNG or NSINGER. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mcmatter and because it doesn't appear that there are any other possible sources. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found in the above table are notable locally. Article should be kept due to the local notability. TapticInfo (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia is presumed if you have the ability to find 1. multiple reliable sources with 2. significant coverage of the subject that are 3. independent of the subject. That's just not a requirement this article meets, and no amount of "local notability" can change that, at least in my opinion. casualdejekyll (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor above just gave a very detailed review of how the sourcing isn't enough to meet our notability criteria. So it's not very convincing to counter that with a vague "it's notable" counter-argument. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the source assessment table by John B123, pretty clear that WP:GNG is not satisfied. I would argue that the source from Sowetan is quite reliable though, but it does not change anything as it is just interview with the subject, and still does not count towards WP:GNG.SunDawn talk 07:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table was the good work of Mcmatter not me. --John B123 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Does not meet WP:GNG per the "Source assessment table" by Mcmatter to this point there are no keep votes with Wikipedia viable arguments. Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2021 (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.