Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinnyx
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
— User:Otr500, 10:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited 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 (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)