Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Sharaz

DJ Sharaz

DJ Sharaz (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)

In accordance with the criteria for musicians and ensembles:

1. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Page cites a single about.com interview and I can't find others. Whether an about.com subdomain blog is non-trivial is debatable.

2. Has reportedly had a remix appear briefly on a Billboard genre chart but citations may not be reliable.

3. Has not had a gold record.

4. Has not had non-trivial coverage of a international/national concert tour.

5. Has not released two or more albums on a major record nor one of the more important indie labels.

6. Is not an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, nor a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

7. Has not become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style, nor the most prominent of a local scene of a city. (Note: this kind of needs sources for it to be a reason to keep the article.)

8. Has not won, nor been nominated for a major music award. The page cites him as a nominee for something called the International Dance Music Awards at the Winter Music Conference but this is arguably not a major award.

9. Has not won, nor placed in a major music competition.

10. Has not performed music for a work of media that is notable.

11. Has not been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio nor music television network.

12. Has not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across national radio nor TV network.

This article was recently a PROD which was contested (by a removal of the template) but I agree it is not notable enough for WP. Radiodef (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep

• Keep: WP doesn't make a distinction as to what "genre" a Billboard charted track shows up in, only that the artist in question has some kind of measurable chart success. There is also no minimum time the work stays on the charts. In this case it was several weeks with one week at #1 - WP only specifies that the work be charted, not a #1 or a Top 20 single or album. The subject is a dance music artist and his achievement showed up, appropriately, on Billboard's Dance Music chart.

The IDMAs are considered of particular note over on the Wiki EDM page. These are significant awards for artistic achievement in electronic music since there is no such thing as the electronic dance Grammys or an AMW specifically for dance music. This is EDMs version of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: I also vote KEEP. I've read the requirements and it's clear this artists work has been charted on Billboard which is one of the litmus tests for inclusion on WP. One one requirement is necessary. -Art Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.13.66 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Exactly what was being advertised? Can you expand on that please because reading the entry and also previous versions seem to read like any other artist page (I.e. Avicii, Skrillex, etc). I didn't find any links to anything for sale or being advertised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B11C:CA19:94FB:7EFC:677B:B57A (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What was being advertised was the artist's picture at the very top of the [Electronic Dance Music] page. It was by no means, a good picture. The picture quality wasn't great, nor was the subject. However, due to some anonymous users vehemently re-linking the picture to the top of the page seemed to indicate advertising. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 04:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: I would like to remove the PROD flag and deletion notice within the next 24 hours unless someone can provide proof the article about Billboard is a fake or somehow inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoma665 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: No objection here to removing the the deletion tags. Can someone please reinstate his association with Afrika Bambaataa and the link to his mention of producing for him in Electronic Music Magazine? Not sure why this was removed - probably a subversive tactic make it appear there is no other notable production accomplishment regarding the artist. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete

• Delete: I went through the entire list of references, and only one of them could even remotely pass as reliable. Seems as though a few unregistered users are attempting to keep it up by posting photos of the subject on other pages, and using his page as advertisement. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 06:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to organize this page a little more. I'd really like to see some input from a more experienced user about why to keep the page, as the IP addresses posting here aren't familiar with our standards for notability involving references. Just to add, it seems as if the IP addresses have been following this artist for a while. Association, a few scattered nominations, and remixes don't make a notable artist. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 04:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

---