Pyti : Star Mississippi 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Still not seeing any genuinely independent coverage in WP:RS.  These contrived 'reviews' are likely pay-for-play. - KH-1 ( talk ) 01:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last discussion was mostly about one bad source, and there was a lack of sources (a year and half ago).  Consensus was "neither the quality nor the quantity are sufficient".  There were just two WP:RS , now it's nine, the article is sourced a lot better, and we have reliable sources to choose from, which I mentioned below.  References 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 are WP:RS from WP:A/S list.  Let's choose the best WP:THREE and estimate them.  Let's take a look at these three for example: 14 from The Source : 8 paragraphs article, seven of them are in-depth review of a specific composition (Sunswept).  Sha be Allah talks about rhythmic structure, using silence as a spesific technique, about weaknesses such as synth choise and melodies.  Pretty solid review.  15 from MusicTimes: 9 paragraphs reviewing the composition (Sunswept).  Here as well, we can see full detailed review of this track.  David Thompson talks about harmonic progression, rhythmic elements, potential areas of improvement such as adding more levels of instrumentation or experimental elements to make it more unique, or about using space and synths between each other, vocals and etc. 12 from AllHipHop : Here we can see not only giving a closer look, but a critical look at another composition (Fortuna).  We can see suggestions for improvement such as repetitive bass, layering and etc.  We can pay attention to the editorial comments like "the structure of the track does not quite fit the typical radio format, mainly due to its lengthy intro", about layering again and etc.  WP:MUSICBIO says, that "Notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.".  If these three WP:RS convinced you, then this article belongs wikipedia.  Roxy177 ( talk ) 05:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreeing—based on WP:RS analysis done above by Roxy177— that the article itself does a good job at demonstrating notability.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 15:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC) stricken, see below microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 19:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have serious doubts over the legitimacy of some of these reviews.  Sha be Allah (ref #14) previously published another "review" of Pyti's music [27] , which turned out to be plagiarized from several other sources (see previous AfD).  The other sources are not without issues either. - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you be so kind as to reconsider new sources, please?  Because, what if your "doubts" are wrong?  I personally always try to rely on facts.  That's why I metnioned above all new reviews from WP:RS list that have been presented since the previous AfD.  (I just analyzed three, which are quite in-depth reviews, there are seven new different reviews from WP:RS in total).  And deleting only based on a previous AfD is kind of unfair.  Roxy177 ( talk ) 17:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, that's... fishy .  I'm going to strike my ! keep as I no longer have confidence in it, but I can't say I endorse ! delete here either.  What's going on with the other sources?  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 19:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Stuck on this.  I have to say, I think the thrust of the argument for N on the article page itself is two sentences at the end of the biography section.  Sha be Allah wrote 3 of the 9 citations in that section (as an aside, raising some red flags for wikipuffery or overcitation).  @ Roxy177 : you keep citing WP:RS but the only claim to WP:N isn't WP:V if it has been established previously by consensus that the author for one-third of that part of the article isn't reliable, despite the writing appearing in an outlet that has been described as generally reliable , then I think N fails.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 19:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ MicrobiologyMarcus : The previous consensus was that just one article is unreliable.  (not 3 of the 9, neither that the author nor the source are no longer reliable)  My point is that the new reviews from Sha be Allah deserve attention and trust, because they are different.  (for example ref #14 I mentioned is exactly a serious review)  This is a specific review of a specific composition, meticulous, without general phrases and fluff.  Sigcov?  Besides, there are 6 more sources left.  Roxy177 ( talk ) 21:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Just rewatched sources and the article itself again and I'm going to say that my ! vote is still ! keep.  Because as far as those sources are concerned, they are independent and reliable.  they all together seem fit, alongside with the analysis of the sources (per WP:THREE ) that I have done above.  If we don't consider a bad source from previous AfD, subject's notability will not be greatly lost from this, this is the point (we can check that by simply removing the sentence " Sha Be Allah from The Source compared Pyti's work to artists such as AVICII, Juice WRLD, and Diplo ", which this particular source is supporting).  There are still different reviews of different subject's works in various reliable sources.  Roxy177 ( talk ) 05:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are several sources that seem good enough to meet notability, including The Source, Music Times and AllHipHop.  He has 2 or 3 articles in each, but per the rules the duplicate publications should count as one, but I feel there is still enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 01:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Royal88888 , please cite the sources you are speaking of even if they are present in the article for quick inspection.  dxneo ( talk ) 09:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See below.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A formal source analysis would be useful here.  And stating that sources are "likely pay-for-play" is less than certain, it sounds like a suspicion rather than evidence that should determine whether or not an article should be deleted.  If sources, currently or found during this discussion, fulfill Wikipedia's guideline on music sources, that should be sufficient.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that saying "likely pay-for-play" without providing reasoning or assertion how they decided this to be the case, should not be a valid reason that they are Pay-for-play.  In my opinion, the following articles are the best ones - The source: Review of Pyti , Focus & Fortuna , Deep dive into... - AllHipHop: A look into Pytis Latest 5 Singles , Focus review , Fortuna - Music times: Dubstep , Sunswept Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: all 3 publications have been verified to be reliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES .  Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please keep this article, he is a very famous musician in Belarus.  31.31.104.235 ( talk ) 19:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just done a formal source analysis.  The following sources are independent and reliable (see WP:A/S ).  And as for coverage, let's take a look: [28] - 12 paragraphs in total, 2-3 paragraphs for each of several songs.  [29] - 7 paragraphs dedicated to a specific song (Focus), talking about notable techniques, rhythmic challenges, layering and distorted sound effects.  [30] - 8 paragraphs article, seven of them are really in-depth review of a specific composition (Sunswept).  talking about rhythmic structure, verses, drops, outro.  Almost every paragraph contains compostion's weaknesses.  Pretty solid review.  [31] - 9 paragraphs reviewing the composition (Sunswept).  talking about harmonic progression, rhythmic elements, potential areas of improvement such as adding more levels of instrumentation or experimental elements, or about using synths and space between each other, vocals and etc.  [32] - 8 paragraphs dedicated to a specific song (Fortuna), a critical look.  We can see suggestions for improvement such as repetitive bass, layering and etc.  We can pay attention to the editorial comments like "the structure of the track does not quite fit the typical radio format, mainly due to its lengthy intro", about layering again and etc.  [33] - again primary subject.  5 paragraps article, reviewing two compositions.  [34] - 15 paragraphs in total: 5 paragraphs of general words, 2-3 paragraphs for each of several songs (6-7 in total), talking more about the artistic image of the compositions rather than the purely technical part, such as synthesizers and instruments.  [35] - 9 paragraphs reviewing two compositions, 4-5 for each.  talking about a moment when the singer joins in the mix, about lyrics, about mixing genres, how the artist plays with song's dynamics and tempo.  [36] - a bad source.  has been discussed.  (see previous AfD)  With all that said, there are enough different verifiable sources to keep the article.  8 out of 9 WP:RS comply with rules on music sources, the best three of them (per WP:THREE ) are 14, 15, 12, as was the case in my quick analysis above.  Roxy177 ( talk ) 17:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is evidence to show that all the authors involved in these reviews have history of questionable conduct.  The plagiarism from Sha be Allah is pretty blatant, so I would have serious reservations about trusting any subsequent reviews.  I also noticed plagiarism (or at least very close paraphrasing) by "David Thompson", the author of all the reviews on Musictimes.  Here's one example: An Idiot's Guide to EDM Genres ( Complex - Oct 2017 ) REVIEW: PYTI is Showing The Other Side of Dubstep ( Musictimes Mar 2023 ) While the term "EDM" has been a buzz term for the last few years, electronic dance music has been here for decades.  And no matter how you slice it, we can't see the term EDM and lump every style and artist that puts out electronic music into one pot.  It does a disservice to the individuals making the music, and the people who have been documenting the music.  Although EDM has been a trendy term in recent years, Electronic Dance Music has been around for decades.  The diversity of styles is very wide and differentiated; no matter how you look at it, we cannot lump all genres and artists into one group.  This does not satisfy the people who are dedicated to making this kind of music as well as those who have been documenting the evolution of this movement.  Contrary to popular belief, dubstep was not directly born from a love of dub music; it started as a darker, more experimental take on the 2-step sound that was running through London in the late 1990s.  Clocking in at 140BPM, the early sound of dubstep was far from the aggressive tracks that are associated with the genre today .  Early incarnations of dubstep are over a decade old, but the sound really started to grow in 2005 I t started out as a darker, more experimental take .  At 140 BPM, the sound of dubstep was far from the aggressive tracks that are associated with the genre today.  The earliest incarnations of dubstep date back more than 10 years, but the sound really started to grow in 2005 I have to go, but I will have more to say on this shortly. - KH-1 ( talk ) 13:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this what you meant when you said that there are sources that are likely "pay-for-play"?  As for the bad source by Sha be Allah, that's what I wrote above in my analysis - bad source.  God only knows how the authors write their articles, but this is not a reason not to count good reviews, there are enough of them here.  You did a good job analyzing the source, but how does this relate to the subject's music?  What you discovered.  This is not plagiarism, but it seems like a paraphrase, I agree.  But the sentence "dubstep is an aggressive, dark, experimental style of music, with a 140 bpm, and it began to grow in 2005" does not mean that the source is bad, or unreliable, or "pay-to-play".  This is history.  And if you type it into Google, many articles contain this to some degree.  Let's take a look at these three for example: [37] , [38] , [39] .  As you can see, each of these articles contains "a dark, experimental style of music, 140 bpm, and it began to grow in 2005 in US".  Your evidence does not prove anything, it is the history and general facts about that particular style of music.  Once again, in my formal analysis I described these sentences as "general phrases."  How these general phrases relate to “subject’s music”, “Notability” and how this confirms that the article about subject should be deleted is not clear.  We must answer the question whether there are enough reliable sources covering the subject's music, and whether they fit the Wikipedia rules (independent, reliable, sigcov) or not.  They fit and there are enough of them.  We may not count the source somewhere if paraphrasing about dubstep confuses you, but these are general phrases about dubstep genre, they don’t relate to the subject anyway.  And I kindly invite you to take a look at the best WP:THREE music review sources I suggested above.  If they are not strong enough in your opinion, then there is an additional one for each that makes it even stronger.  Roxy177 ( talk ) 17:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The integrity of the writing goes to the heart of whether a source should be considered for WP:N.  You described Sha Be Allah's work as "a bad source" [40] , after the revelations of plagiarism.  Applying the same standard, we should question the validity of David Thompson's work as well.
 Also, I'm not done with the analysis of the Musictimes review .  After plagiarizing the intro/background section, the author makes a contrived segue: Into all of this environment, a Belarus musician has made his way, by adding his own essence and style.  We are talking about PYTI, whose real name is Alexey Nikitin.  He then goes on to describe the music.  To me, the prose used throughout the rest of the article seems a bit odd: The deep lines of his tracks, the calculated rhythmic dispersion, and its atmosphere of restlessness as well as the halo of mystery that surround his creations, have made of him an illustrative musician of the tension of the young millennium stop .  What does that even mean?  There's more to be said about the writing style in the other reviews as well.  I can go through it in detail, but the general gist of it is that these do not seem like genuine reviews. - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't really plagiarize facts, they generally count as common knowledge.  Typically you don't need to fear, writing a fact.  You can plagiarize opinions.  For example: someone lost a war on a certain island in the Pacific Ocean in the late 1990s.  And another example: someone lost a war on a certain island in the Pacific Ocean in the late 1990s due to a lack of ammunition, equipment, poor logistics, no friends and etc.  Dry historical facts vs opinion on why someone lost a war.  Returning back to this source, that intro/background section where he talks about dubstep history, contains historical facts or an author’s opinion?  Let’s talk about writing style, I like, that you mentioned that.  You said “I have serious doubts over the legitimacy of some of these reviews”, now I understand, what confuses you.  This sentence looks really fancy:) Look, I try to explain using an example: Imagine a reliable source and an author who talks about how he loves LGBTQIA+, that there was a festival, let’s say, somewhere in Belarus, and there was a subject who was such a great leader, that he was even an illustrative figure of young millenniums, and how much beautiful people he saw, how he loved their fight for equality, and he used laudatory phrases and a doubtful transition from one section to another in his article.  Are we going to count this article “does not seem like genuine review” because of author’s writing style or because we can’t accept the author’s mood?  Or we still may write an article based on that example from NPOV?  This is the point.  Every author has their own taste in music and writing style to some degree, whether it’s in a positive mood or a negative one, we may use them all, and the result is a written article about subject based on those WP:RS and from WP:NPOV .  Wikipedia is encyclopedia, it provides summaries of knowledge.  We have different reviews of varying degrees of criticism here, critical reviews too, and they comply with the Wikipedia's guidelines on music sources, which I analyzed above.  Roxy177 ( talk ) 07:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I present my analysis of WP:THREE good sources: Let's look at another review by this author you are talking about: MusicTimes - Sunswept review At the beginning of the article author talks about the track structure: From the slow build-up at the intro, which transitions into a fast, upbeat tempo as the song progresses, the artist uses various techniques to evoke a sense of anticipation and closure throughout the song.  Analyzes the introduction: During the track's intro, a deliberate pace builds slowly and smoothly into the song's primary groove.  In the intro section, the artist also introduces melodic hooks using a cool bluesy melody and percussions to grab the listener's attention.  Then describes the alternation of tempo.  Talking about transitions between sections of a song: The transitions between various sections are well executed, allowing a smooth progression that keeps listeners engaged even when the tempo drops.  The smooth transitions also add a sense of anticipation to the song and provide a satisfying release during the composition's outro.  Then author analyzes the harmonic progression, mixing, danceability of the track, etc. I see no point in quoting the entire review.  Finally, he analyzes potential areas for improvement.  The review quality is clear.  Let's take an in-depth look at the review by Sha be Allah: The Source - Sunswept review Intro: The track opens with some retro inspired synths, programmed in a fast paced arpeggiated sequence.  It comes off as almost ethereal, with some washy atmospheric sweeps in the background to create anticipation for the next section.  While not particularly groundbreaking, it serves its purpose as a calm and peaceful starting point and does its job of setting the stage for an anticipated drop.  This is immediately followed by a detailed critique of the following section: Just as the song insinuates, the initial drop comes right afterwards, albeit a bit too intensely.  The most prominent element is the sidechained kick, which is a bit heavy in the mix.  The imbalance of the kick drum vs the synthesizers takes away from the spotlight that the synth melodies should be receiving.  However, on a second or third listen, the ears tend to enjoy the danceability of that intense beat.  It’s a double-edged sword that can be both exhilarating and overwhelming for the listener.  Then analysis of the second verse: Verse two arrives afterwards, and the fast paced sequenced arpeggiators are introduced again, bringing a nice allude to the introduction.  Critical analysis of the second drop: The persistent dominance of the kick drum is still there, but the synths appear louder in volume and layered more, making it a more complete drop than the first.  Detailed analysis of the outro: The outro brings back the consistent retro synth sound underneath a new counter melody.  The new key sound, which alludes to a toy keyboard or a classic patch in Serum, helps ground the finale with some much peace.  And so on.  The review quality is clear.  And, finally, let's take a look at the 3rd review: AllHipHop - Fortuna review Intro: “Fortuna” begins with a long intro featuring a gentle melody that gradually develops with layered synths, creating a sense of anticipation and tone for the rest of the song.  The energy builds up as the intro progresses, then the artist introduces a solid bassline that is repeated almost throughout the entire song.  This baseline serves as the foundation that other instruments are layered.  And its beats and tempo are fast-paced.  Next author talks about synthesizers and vocal snippets: The track also utilizes brief vocal snippets that add personality to it and make it more memorable.  The vocals also help balance the song, especially when the artist continuously uses many synthesizers.  And so on.  At the end there is a conversation about aspects that can be improved: For example, the structure of the track does not quite fit the typical radio format, mainly due to its lengthy intro, therefore, which could limit its exposure.  Also, using too many synths, distortions, and other random elements could clutter the melody and distract some listeners.  The layering of too many elements at a time could also distract and overwhelm some listeners.  The review quality is clear.  You are moving the discussion into the idea that if an author once had a bad review, then all subsequent reviews will also be bad, but this is not true.  And one does not follow from the other.  Or in your opinion, the author cannot write both a bad and a good review?  Or do you want us to start discussing whether this particular source is reliable or not?  Or any other source.  Is the author reliable, can we trust him or not?  My point is if the prose in the article or some sentence “seems a bit odd” for you, you may simply not take this source into account when evaluating N. Let’s evaluate the facts about subject's work.  Do these reviews that I quoted comply with the Wikipedia's guidelines?  Does the prose convince you?  They are sufficient to establish subject's N. Roxy177 ( talk ) 16:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Most of the above is TLDR, but Roxy177's source eval shows significant discussion of the subject and their work.  The article is sourced for a BLP, may be a bit promo, but that doesn't dismiss the sources Roxy177 mentions above.  // Timothy :: talk 09:49, 21 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep