- 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 being relisted more than twice, the discussion contained a mixed collection of reasons for keeping and deleting the article, whose artist has multiple charting tunes. (non-admin closure) --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yung Simmie (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)
Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards. Billboard charts are deprecated, per WP:BADCHARTS. Sources cited in article are primary sources (interviews) or trivial, paragraph-long mentions in industry or fansite publications. Unable to locate a significant secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Yung Simmie covers WP:MUSICBIO No.7, he has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city which is Miami, Florida and also has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources , like Chris Travis and Bones he is notable as well. 32zel (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Strike comments from confirmed sock.- — 32zel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong Keep Really important artist in Miami Florida and also in hip hop underground scene. Also has a lot of coverage of reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] also has appeared in notable artist projects such as Denzel Curry, Spaceghostpurrp and Suicideboys Kakashi123456789 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Strike comments from confirmed sock.- — Kakashi123456789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ronz: Since your assuming and acussing me of only creating this account to save this article You should take a little look here WP:DNB, also you should read this Who not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) , pretty much your tagging us to intentionally take away the relevance of my and :@32zel: "keep" requests. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also i would like to ask what is that "single-purpose" your acussing my account of being part of?Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not doing any of those things. You have a total of 64 edits, starting March 2, 2017. At a glance, they all look to be in the area of very similar music. That's a SPA from my perspective.
- The issue here on this page is to determine whether or not the Yung Simmie article should be deleted. You believe there are reasons for a "strong keep", but haven't offered anything that remotely supports such a position. I've offered basic approaches to solving this. They've been ignored by everyone arguing "keep". As a result, I've decided the article would be better deleted, but offered yet more ways we could resolve this differently. You've responded by taking this as a personal attack. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The first and third source listed are interviews, which are primary sources. The second article is a short bio and a track listing. These sources hardly support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Those were only some examples, as you can see in the article there is still many more of reliable sources such as XXL Magazine, Complex, The Source [4][5][6], the artist is notable and certainly deserves a wikipedia article.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- The fourth is another interview. The fifth is a short profile that might, with other similar or better sources, together demonstrate substantial coverage. The sixth is an announcement from three years back.
- Basically, there's one source here that might demonstrate notability if there were more like it. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yung simmie has shown multiple news coverage for a considerable time , here evidence of past and present articles, still there is more articles that i could present but i think this is enough to show the artists notability .[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Kakashi123456789 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I looked at each sources cited and it is a cacophony of primary source interviews, one sentence-long intros to a video, and vacuous paragraph-long bios. A more obvious example of WP:E=N and WP:SOUNDCLOUDBAND would be difficult to find, but consensus seems to have spoken. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment What @Magnolia677: is assuming isnt correct, the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Danielle Bregoli brings back 150,000 more articles on Google. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Are you trying to troll or something? Please dont try to change the sentence and try to keep the mature ambient that the discussion once had until you brought up your joke. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Kakashi123456789, you wrote "the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE." If Wikipedia articles were based on notability "over the years", whatever that means, the "cash me outside" girl would also have an article, but it was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Bregoli (personality)), just as this one should be. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note The discussion isnt about comparing how much existing articles a certain artist or personality has. 32zel (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- COMMENT First of all the comparison is out of place since Yung simmie and Bregoli dont have nothing in comon.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677: Just to let you know Magnolia677 that you wanted the Danielle Bregoli article deleted, because you nominated it. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- COMMENT First of all the comparison is out of place since Yung simmie and Bregoli dont have nothing in comon.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note The discussion isnt about comparing how much existing articles a certain artist or personality has. 32zel (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Kakashi123456789, you wrote "the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE." If Wikipedia articles were based on notability "over the years", whatever that means, the "cash me outside" girl would also have an article, but it was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Bregoli (personality)), just as this one should be. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Are you trying to troll or something? Please dont try to change the sentence and try to keep the mature ambient that the discussion once had until you brought up your joke. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Danielle Bregoli brings back 150,000 more articles on Google. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment What @Magnolia677: is assuming isnt correct, the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I looked at each sources cited and it is a cacophony of primary source interviews, one sentence-long intros to a video, and vacuous paragraph-long bios. A more obvious example of WP:E=N and WP:SOUNDCLOUDBAND would be difficult to find, but consensus seems to have spoken. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yung simmie has shown multiple news coverage for a considerable time , here evidence of past and present articles, still there is more articles that i could present but i think this is enough to show the artists notability .[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Kakashi123456789 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Those were only some examples, as you can see in the article there is still many more of reliable sources such as XXL Magazine, Complex, The Source [4][5][6], the artist is notable and certainly deserves a wikipedia article.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The first and third source listed are interviews, which are primary sources. The second article is a short bio and a track listing. These sources hardly support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Agreeing with other editors based on their presented evidence, although Yung Simmie has no charted songs, he has repeated notable news coverage as shown. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
*Keep - Agreeing with Bloomdoom and 32zel on this. He is notable enough to have an article. LilNumerator (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC) strike comments from confirmed sock.
- Request Rather than spamming this discussion with a long list of poor references, could someone identify sources that are equal of better than the fifth listed below, http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/ ? If none exist, which seems to be the case, then the article should be stubbed or deleted. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I’m not seeing anything of significance among the references provided. Most are 1st person, user submitted (such as hotnewhiphop) or trivial. While sources such as Complex, The Source, XXL, can indeed reveal secondary evidence of wikipedia notability, the coverage they have given this subject isn’t. It’s worth noting that in today’s digital media age—where websites are hungry for constant, easy content—any artist with just the smallest amount of effort is going to get the kind of coverage evidenced here: interviews, announcements of releases, inclusions on lists, credits lists, etc. This does not represent true "third party" coverage. Many of these kinds of magazines/websites, in fact, give directions to whom/and how to submit content to get the desired press. The existences of such coverage is just that: existence. Every industry has it’s unique press arm, but that doesn’t mean any thing that gets press is notable. Were that the case then, for example, every realtor in Miami would merit a wikipedia page by pointing to their trade industry profiles, listings, etc. That is precisely why the guidelines for WP:MUSIC specify that meeting criteria may be—not is—indication of notabiity. It’s not automatic without being subjected to the kind of analysis provided here.
- Having said that, I am willing to give the editors arguing “keep” a chance to get me to change my ivote. While I’m reasonably well-versed in publishing and music marketing, I’ll admit I know nothing of the Miami underground hip hop scene. Looking over the edit history of these “keep” editors it appears they have a common interest and/or connection to the scene. And although a few of their histories reveal a rare or/no participation in prior AFD discussions (a tell-tale sign of their presence here being the result of possible WP:CANVASING) I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt and hear their arguments why the Miami hip-hop scene (and it’s key proponents) are encyclopedia-worthy. It will certainly need more than what has been shown so far. The only decent reference, as pointed out by user Ronz, is the article in XXL. But if that’s it—just one—then, no, it does not represent significant coverage, and neither is being one-out-of-fifteen people listed in an article enough to merit a stand alone wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ShelbyMarion: HotNewHipHop is not a user submitted site, they have their own editors, so I don't know where you got that idea from. Some more sources featuring Yung Simmie here, here and here. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bloomdoom2, User submit information comes directly from HotNewHipHop itself. Upfront, the very first sentence of their mission statement under the "about" link declares: "HotNewHipHop.com empowers artists by letting them showcase their music to real hip hop fans." Here is the link for how artists can submit their content: http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/heatseekers-update-new-format-to-submit-your-songs-and-videos-news.10321.html? ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ShelbyMarion: HotNewHipHop is not a user submitted site, they have their own editors, so I don't know where you got that idea from. Some more sources featuring Yung Simmie here, here and here. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Going through all the subsequent links looking for a single source as I requested, I see that Vibe has given him two paragraphs as one in thirty rappers in Florida:http://www.vibe.com/2016/10/30-florida-rappers-you-need-to-hear/yung-simmie-ig/ I don't think that's enough. If editors want to take the time to go through that list of thirty and identify which ones are already considered notable, that might help. If most of the rappers mentioned in the other source, http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/ , are notable, please identify them. Please stop spamming links without regard to their quality. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The GNG isn't met, there's nothing more than passing mentions. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - Please note that User talk:Kakashi123456789 and User talk:32zel have both been blocked for using their accounts abusively. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No other comments after the last 2 relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: No other comments after the last 2 relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment While Billboard's Twitter charts (where the artist reached #8) are deprecated, the subject is listed at #4 on Billboard's Next Big Sound charts.[1] This, combined with decent profile reviews by sources like Movement Magazine and the subject being
"placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."
(WP:NMUSIC#7) by channels like BBC,[2][3][4] make this subject tend towards a Keep rather than a Delete, irrespective of the issue of sock keep !votes above. Lourdes 16:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Lourdes (talk) I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the sources given here. Billboard’s Next Big Sound chart is not a significant chart, it merely charts an aggregate of content downloaded on social music share sites such as Pandora, Last.fm, iheart, etc.. While tracking this info may have some value to industry professionals, for Wikipedia purposes it—like all social media aggregates—amounts to nothing when determining a subject’s notability.
- Movement Magazine is local coverage of the Jacksonville, Florida music scene, and while perhaps a major third party profile therein might account for something, the example cited here does not appear to be a "decent profile review," rather it is merely an announcement of an upcoming release, the kind of standard trivial coverage that is called out in WP:NMUSIC#1 as precisely what is not an indicator of notability. Look at the link at the bottom of the page that allows one to directly submit news of events or announcements; this type of promotional content is consistent with the the vast majority of coverage this subject has gathered, very little of it representing true, independent, third party coverage.
- Finally, the BBC links are not indicative of an artist being in significant rotation as cited in WP:MUSIC#7. You’ve provided archived links to 3 specific shows from the past (From Sep 10, 2012, Jan 24, 2013 and Nov. 3 2013) on the BBC 1XTRA’s Player Radio digital site, a targeted Urban-centic sub-catagory where 37 DJ’s curate playlists based on their personal preferences. For DJ’s to include a track by this artist in their lineup on four occasions over the past 5 years (I found another one from Sep 26, 2014) is a separate debate of notability;
it emphatically is not the same as being on rotation on BBC1
(or any of their other main stations).
- Finally, the BBC links are not indicative of an artist being in significant rotation as cited in WP:MUSIC#7. You’ve provided archived links to 3 specific shows from the past (From Sep 10, 2012, Jan 24, 2013 and Nov. 3 2013) on the BBC 1XTRA’s Player Radio digital site, a targeted Urban-centic sub-catagory where 37 DJ’s curate playlists based on their personal preferences. For DJ’s to include a track by this artist in their lineup on four occasions over the past 5 years (I found another one from Sep 26, 2014) is a separate debate of notability;
- I still stand by my delete vote registered April 7. I’ve followed the comments here—as I wrote that I would—with a good-faith view to have my mind changed. Although googling his name returns tons of hits, none of them are beyond trivial, self-promotional, social media, or being including among a list. Considering his first proper release is coming later this year (per his social media comments) this is, at best, WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I appreciate and respect your viewpoint on the Billboard charts and BBC links. While various Billboard charts have been deprecated, the Billboard chart I have given is explicitly not deprecated. While I respect your view, unless consensus exists that this chart that I have quoted cannot be used, charting on this chart provides NMUSIC support to the subject. Additionally, my view is the same with BBC. I'll request you to search and find out the listings where BBC provides national playlists. A national radio channel has presenters/DJs who select songs based on their popularity. And the subject being selected by multiple DJs on BBC over a significant time period is evidence of WP:NMUSIC#7 being achieved. Let me reiterate, I appreciate your viewpoints and see them as a logical perspective and interpretation too. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I still stand by my delete vote registered April 7. I’ve followed the comments here—as I wrote that I would—with a good-faith view to have my mind changed. Although googling his name returns tons of hits, none of them are beyond trivial, self-promotional, social media, or being including among a list. Considering his first proper release is coming later this year (per his social media comments) this is, at best, WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fair points. Thanks, Lourdes (talk) . BTW, where are these discussions that determine policy? I’ve asked before but didn’t get much direction. I feel the insight from my background in music marketing can benefit the wikipedia community. IMO, some of the criteria could use more clarity, even hardline definition. Billboard’s Next Big Sound Chart needs assessing. It’s true that it is not among those listed as deprecated, but I couldn’t find it listed among those that are acceptable, either. It may simply be so unimportant that it’s never been given consideration. I find it curious that Billboard Twitter charts have been discounted, but their Next Big Sound Chart—a tracking of online social activity regardless of context—hasn’t. (See: https://help.nextbigsound.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2547277-what-is-next-big-sound ) While I believe social media numbers can, in fact, reveal helpful information, they are susceptible to having their numbers corrupted by those savvy enough to know how to do it. And if this subject—Yung Simmie—has convinced me of anything it’s that he (or someone or an agency working on his behalf) knows all too well how to use the internet as a tool for promotion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, you are right about the promotional part. As SmokeyJoe has mentioned, we can bring this article down to a stub in case the article is kept. Lourdes 02:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fair points. Thanks, Lourdes (talk) . BTW, where are these discussions that determine policy? I’ve asked before but didn’t get much direction. I feel the insight from my background in music marketing can benefit the wikipedia community. IMO, some of the criteria could use more clarity, even hardline definition. Billboard’s Next Big Sound Chart needs assessing. It’s true that it is not among those listed as deprecated, but I couldn’t find it listed among those that are acceptable, either. It may simply be so unimportant that it’s never been given consideration. I find it curious that Billboard Twitter charts have been discounted, but their Next Big Sound Chart—a tracking of online social activity regardless of context—hasn’t. (See: https://help.nextbigsound.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2547277-what-is-next-big-sound ) While I believe social media numbers can, in fact, reveal helpful information, they are susceptible to having their numbers corrupted by those savvy enough to know how to do it. And if this subject—Yung Simmie—has convinced me of anything it’s that he (or someone or an agency working on his behalf) knows all too well how to use the internet as a tool for promotion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - Since the first relisting, note that yet another user arguing "keep" has been confirmed as a sock, and their comments have been struck accordingly. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep but stubify. There are some sources that look to met the WP:GNG, such as this and this . However, the article has been Wikipedia:Reference bombed with non-reliable sources. It smells of promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2017 (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.