Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Trey

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. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Trey

[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)

Procedural nomination on J2009j's behalf as they had some technical issues. I am neutral and just re-filing this.

"I believe this article does not meet any notability criteria. There is 1 barely reliable billboard article that can be considered a real source. All the articles are interviews, press, releases, and on some random sites. I do not understand how it was even accepted in the first place.

For example, there are sources like 4 "Ryan Trey Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More |..." AllMusic. Retrieved July 29, 2024. or P, Milca (August 25, 2018). "Ryan Trey Previews "August" Album With "Mutual Butterflies"". HotNewHipHop. Retrieved July 29, 2024., or sources 8, 2, 3 - those are all interviews, or press releases. Those are not national magazines, but some sites with news online. Then most of the sources from 13- to 24 are literally interviews on online news sites. All, except an article on Billboard. So why are those considered "reliable" sources? " Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Missouri. Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I generally prefer not to engage in AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions, as my focus is on improving and creating articles for notable subjects. However, I feel compelled to address the nomination of this article. Nominating an article simply because an editor's draft was rejected seems unwarranted. The sources cited, such as the one from BET, provide significant coverage and should not be dismissed as mere interviews.[1] These sources, along with others, clearly demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I believe the article is well-supported and merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Afro 📢Talk! 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I never nominated anything before. J2009j (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally fine. It happens to all of us at one time or another. I tried to fix it but realized it would just be easier to delete and nominate on your behalf. Star Mississippi 01:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2,3 and 19 are directly about this individual and have been identified as RS by CiteHighlighter. I think we have more than enough with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 is a review, which is a paragraph long personal opinion.

Source 2 is an interview, and interview cannot be used as a reliable so urce.

Source 19 - is an interview again and it does not establish notability. It is what a person says about themselves. J2009j (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trey has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and not self-published, so easliy passes WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example, that is other than an interview? I am confused because it seems same criterias are ignored on wikipedia for other articles. J2009j (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if not procedural keep for a WP:POINTed nomination. There is plenty of secondary coverage outside of interview transcripts, and certainly more than enough to write an article (e.g.: [2][3][4]). The multiple interviews in Billboard, while they don't directly contribute to GNG, are good indications of notability. And there are many other, shorter articles with secondary coverage that would've added up to GNG anyways. Strong pass in my opinion. C F A 💬 00:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to @Afrowriter:, the creator. It appears this was a bad faith nomination that I inadvertently assisted on by helping with the broken template. I do not want to close it to make it look like I'm hiding anything, but no objection if someone else wants to do so. Star Mississippi 01:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an easy Keep so I'd suggesting that we let it run 7 days and encourage Afrowriter not to stress out about this. I've found that early closures can be challenged at DRV and it would be nice to not prolong this with an additional review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok thanks @Liz and @Star Mississippi I have no issue with the article being nominated for Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions. As I mentioned earlier on my talk page, I respect the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and believe it is best to allow other editors to review and discuss the articles before making any decisions.

I have volunteered willingly to assist @J2009j in improving his draft. However, he seems intent on using my article as a reference for his declined article and feels that nominating it for deletion would be a good idea. I have had other drafts declined in the past, and rather than being discouraged, these experiences have motivated me to learn from my mistakes and improve. Afro 📢Talk! 05:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as this appears to have been a WP:POINTed nom requested in bad faith. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (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.