Deletion of Vinnyx

Comment: per , , , , and . Without getting into |the weeds of whether a particular source is significant or reliable, I want to address the big picture. Wikipedians have long had a consensus that producers are ordinary and run of the mill, because their job - while important to the industry and them - does not actually entail creating anything by themselves (they collaborate with and direct musicians). They are not otherwise notable for doing anything at all but their jobs; using a mult box does not require a college degree or a great deal of talent. Actually notable producers tend to own their own studios, are members of an academy such as the Grammys, have long careers, help create innovative or ''avant garde'' work, bring together artists from different genres, have been interviewed by the media for their work, and win awards for their work. I don't see any of that here. SIGCOV creates a ''presumption'' that someone is notable, but many red links direct you to deleted articles about people who've had significant coverage in reliable sources. (I don't want to embarrass anybody, but if you insist, I have the receipts.) I also note that NMUSIC applies to specific issues that musicians and bands deal with; they are notable not for what they write on the bus, but rather for performing in public, even as small as a house concert. For that reason, studio musicians are rarely considered notable. In 2020, everybody knows that Wikipedia is a private charity; thus nobody has a right to have anything |hosted by us. There's certainly no legal right; see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-lawsuit-censorship/google-defeats-conservative-nonprofits-youtube-censorship-appeal-idUSKCN20K33L recent https://www.cnet.com/news/federal-court-tosses-out-tulsi-gabbards-google-lawsuit/ caselaw. You certainly wouldn't demand that the Girl Scouts donate a share of their cookies to your charity, or demand an Episcopal church to host your denomination's rites, or a youth hostel to let you crash there without being a member. The same goes here. To save your article, you still have the burden to find details about a public figure's life (school, relationships, charitable work, etc.), and much more on his song-writing and Platinum certifications. I encourage sysops to give the proponent(s) a week's time to fix this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:NBAND||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:TOOSOON||WP:GNG||WP:WIKILAWYER||WP:NOTWEBHOST)

Comment: with an |alternate '''merge if there is a suitable article''': Per Nom and the in-depth and accurate rationale of user:Bearian. '''Comments''': The opposing "keep" of the editor that likely offered a good faith double ''"!vote"'' actually offers (likely inadvertently) support for "deletion". The comments ''"Why should so many upcoming artists who have not achieved anything significant have Wikipedia pages and upcoming producers are not given the same level of credibility when they have commercially released successful records?"''. This is an  argument. Because "other" articles are on Wikipedia is not relevant. There are many factors that might be the reasoning, like maybe those articles are better sourced, or maybe they just have not came across an editor that questions the notability enough to nominate them. Some key issues here are notability, sources, and the article itself. While a source can be acceptable for content it may not advance notability. An "industry specific source", that may be reliable, is often biased towards the subject tending to be |promotional. If a source is not a review it is likely never going to show but one side so providing |independent sources ({{tq|Is this source '''independent or third-party''', or is it closely affiliated with the subject?}}) provides evidence the article is non-promotional or advertisement. Without this there is a lack of a |neutral point of view. This is not only policy but part of the |Wikipedia "Five pillars". When an article is a |pseudo biography it is usually because the subject is not suitable for a |stand alone article. When the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability|notability of a subject ({{tq|If no reliable wikipedia:Third-party sources|independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.}}) is questioned a |red flag would be {{tq|Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an ''apparent conflict of interest''.}}. Surely it can be seen that many industry specific sources will have "financial or other personal considerations" towards the subject, that would diminish the value over a more independent source, and not be as reliable towards advancing notability, or not at all. A great example of substandard sources not advancing notability would be the source noted above "Genius". Crowdsourcing aside, or the potential reliability of the source, a |COI is clearly evident (possibly except to a fan) with ''"The video was shot and edited by Genius (presumably at their in-house studio)..."''. When the subject of a source is directly involved with the subject of the article there are not only COI issues, independent sourcing issues, NPOV issues, but the source should absolutely be considered a self-published source (if acceptable at all), possible only for content about the subject that does not advance notability, regardless of how many "millions of view" are involved. In my opinion sources presented to |prove notability when |"they clearly do not" are nothing more than |reference bombing, no matter if presented in good faith, but many times are also a Gish gallop argument (intended or not) and the end result is an article that fails more than one point of hat Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:PROMOTION||WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:NPOV||WP:5P2||WP:PSEUDO||WP:PAGEDECIDE||WP:REDFLAG||WP:COI||WP:PROVEIT||WP:MASK||WP:REFBOMB||WP:W)