Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerimon (2nd nomination)

Nerimon

Nerimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims to be a famous blogger and musician. No indication of importance of Blogging. The claim to fame as a musician are two albums and two EP's on an independent label. No independent reliable sources that give good coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Using only the links in this AFD, I found BBC article(includes a photo of him), Wired, plus lots of other stuff, including stuff in languages I don't speak. The article certainly needs work, but news alone makes him pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Brilliant Dennis, thanks, I hadn't properly looked at that yet after I rejected CSD (shame on me). Let's let it run it's course though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete An article about this person was actually created waaay back in April of last year, under his legal name (Alex Day). It remained on Wikipedia for about six months, before being deleted in October as a result of an AfD discussion (which can still be viewed here). The general consensus from the discussion was that, although his username "Nerimon" has been mentioned briefly in a handful of sources, they are almost exclusively trivial and few of them even mention him by name. I don't feel that this current article establishes notability any better than the last one, and, looking down on the list of results from Google News, I'm not sure that there is really enough there to pass WP:GNG. Although Day has released a couple of albums and EPs, they were all on a small, independent label that doesn't seem to be notability of itself, so I don't believe that he passes WP:MUSICBIO either. A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Mmm.. cant say that I'm 100% sure that notability has been asserted in this instance. Regarding the list of Google News results, it would seem that, once you remove all the dead links and the questionable results in other languages, all that you're left with is a fleeting mention on a BBC news website, and an article on Wired.com that seems to be more about the genre that he's created rather than him. Doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:WEB either, if that's applicable here... 109.204.113.111 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: I previously opined that he was notable in the Alex Day AfD. I deal with a lot of youtuber/internet articles and I know we are vigilant to guard against the many non-notable subjects whose fans try to get onto wikipedia, but this one is legitimate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• He's certainly legitimate, but the question is whether there exists enough extensive coverage on reliable sources. The BBC article only talks about him in passing, and (while the wired article is more comprehensive) it doesn't even go as far as to mention Day's name. I still feel that he is not (yet) notable. Also, without material from reliable sources, how can we verify anything in the article? Just my thoughts... A Thousand Doors (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Alex is awesome and shud deffo have a wikipedia. he has done loads of stuff that makes him important. he has over 200,000 subscrbers to his channel, he was in fiveawesomeguys, he invited trock, he is in chamelon circuit, he won upstaged, he made rthe top 40 with 'ive got nothing', he released albums on dftba, need i go on???? dftba! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.211.18 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — 92.21.211.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes, while all those things are true, I don't think any of them necessarily assert Day's notability. His subscriber count isn't really relevant, per WP:BIGNUMBER. Involvement in things like Fiveawesomeguys, Trock, Chameleon Circuit and DFTBA Records also isn't relevant, as they themselves are not (yet) notable. If one of them does become notable, then it might be appropriate to include Alex. His role in Upstaged was as one of a larger ensemble; he was a contestant on the show, rather than a "star", and (from what I recall) he didn't even take part in the semi-final or final. Finally, he didn't actually feature on the Chartjackers single – he was more of a promoter, and didn't perform on the track, produce it, star in the video nor feature in the artwork. If the single had been credited to "Chartjackers feat. Nerimon" or something, then I might be inclined to support than argument, but it wasn't. A Thousand Doors (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Per the above reasoning. 92.21.204.220 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. As A Thousand Doors has indicated, the articles do not discuss Nerimon in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. Even if they did, he still seems not notable enough to warrant his own article; GNG does not guarantee an article. If he becomes more notable and covered in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure the general notability guideline actually is a measure of what is deemed notable. Though subjects that fail the guideline may still be included or excluded on other grounds, notability on wikipedia is pretty much defined as passing the GNG. To me a deletion rationale of 'it passes the general notability guideline, but is not notable' makes no sense. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  While I do agree with you, it seems to me that Crisco's point is that Day does not yet satisfy GNG anyway, regardless of whether or not doing so would imply his notability. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I was poorly paraphrasing this:

  "... significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."

  Sorry for any misunderstandings. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. nn musician. Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. 81.168.70.117 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  It seems the notability stems more from his status as blogger than his musical carreer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  fair enough then, but i dont see how his notability as a blogger is established either. the whole page reads more like an advertisement for him than an encyclopedic article anyway. 81.168.70.117 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: I was actually always a fan of the article that we had on Alex Day last year (I edited it quite a bit), although I can understand why it was deleted. I definitely don't believe that this current article is necessarily an improvement or asserts Day's notability any clearer, so I feel that it should also be deleted. V_oBEDD 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: In the last AfD, when I was more inexperienced and compassionate, I struggled to come to a conclusion on this subject's notability. I finally decided on delete. Since then, nothing has changed to improve Day's notability (in fact his star seems to be fading). I have been hosting the original article here in the hope that I might be able to keep it current in case he does something which confers notability. I haven't been able to do this although it's worth a look. The article was of good quality but the bold nominator was correct in saying that there were no real signs of the subject passing our notability guidelines. This is still the case. —Half Price 22:00, 23 May 2011 (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.