Froid (rapper) : Lacks WP:SIGCOV .  Macbeejack ☎ 05:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Brazil .  Macbeejack ☎ 05:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  This might be a long one- anyways, first thing that's wrong with this one is @ Moscow Connection 's claim that he passes WP:MUSICBIO #3 - he does not.  The paragraph immediately above this states "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials."  The archived RevistaRap magazine by @ Moscow Connection reads more as a blog.  The Omelete source on the article seems to be more of a "geek" source a la Screenrant (unreliable due to engagement clicks and more of a blog than news).  The only reliable source apparent on the article is the Pro-Música Brasil, but that seems to be not a news source but rather a federal agency (not a secondary source, which is preferable).  Genius as a source seems to have no consensus, however does not appear appropriate in proving the existence of an album due to it being WP:USERGENERATED (so that takes out sources 9 and 4).  And the rest of the sources have these same problems with notability (one of the ones listed).  Pardon me for suggesting that this may even fall under WP:GARAGEBAND (even if the artist is neither a garageband nor is Garageband completely serious).  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 14:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You wrote a long post dismissing 3 completely random references I had found in the Portuguese Wikipedia.  You could have spend this time googling the rapper's name, and you'd see another 100 publications about him.  -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 06:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you continue bringing sources, I will check each of them.  This doesn't mean I'm trying to prove you wrong- why the hell would I edit here if I wanted to tear it all down?  I just want to ensure the mission of knowledge is carried along with reliability, and I'm sure you do too.  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 07:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What I want to ensure is that an article on a notable musician isn't be deleted from Wikipedia.  But I don't want to put much effort into it.  Btw, I have no idea why a completely random newly registered user nominated this article for deletion.  Obviously, he didn't follow the WP:BEFORE process and should be reprimanded.  He could have googled "Froid", "rap", "brasileiro", smth like that, and he would have found more potential references.  -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 08:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is pretty strange.  I also agree the AFD probably wasn't followed properly in that case, but it appears as there is a lot of questionable sources attached to the article unfortunately.  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 17:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Source 5 to 11 are only listings.  Fails GNG Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 05:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I was on the fence to submit for deletion after doing some clean-up edits as I'd never done so before but I agree that it fails WP:GNG .  EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I affirm that the article in question correctly complies with WP:Music guidelines, and there is no reason for it to be banned, as the rapper Froid is quite notable here in Brazil (or in other countries abroad), having received numerous news and appearances by other great Brazilian artists.  Gustavo (Musician Wiki) ( talk ) 00:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As has been noted above, while Froid has had certified singles , he fails WP:SIGCOV - as there is not enough detailed coverage about him by news/media outlets.  If you'd like to give your opinion, I'd suggest you do so in a new contribution to the page, with Keep , along with your reasoning.  More guidance on how to do this can be found at WP:DISCUSSAFD .  EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) ( talk ) 01:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's an easy and strong keep .  He had a record certified diamond, see WP:MUSICBIO #3.  And the Portugese Wiki article has more relable sources, like: • All about Froid – Profile ( Rap magazine); • Froid recebe placa de Disco de Diamante por “O Pior Disco do Ano” ; • Conheça Froid, rapper brasileiro que acredita que a Terra é plana: "A Nasa é uma mentira" .  So he passes WP:GNG .  (See also WP:MUSICBIO #1.) -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 08:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  It would be interesting to get more evaluation of the sources brought into the discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment- Sorry, don't review AFD often so I forgot how replies work; meant to put it down here.  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The three new sources (Rap magazine, "Froid recebe" and "Conaheca Froid") are all minimal, half page posts.  I'm not seeing sigcov, so I don't think we have enough to pass musical notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional comment .  I am genuinely shocked by this very US-centered discussion.  The users who can't read Portuguese and can't google, shouldn't have participated.  In short, do you want more?  I simply googled "Froid rapper Belo Horizonte", and here: Freud ou Froid?  – Meon Froid lança disco “Mr. Ego” no Opinião – Correio do Povo Rapper Froid apresenta novo disco no Opinião neste sábado – Jornal do Comércio Vem aí: festival confirma Froid como 3ª atração nacional – Campo Grande News And you can google a bit more.  That is, if you really want to know if the rapper is notable.  If you just want to write clever comments, just comment on and on and on... -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 05:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can find his Brasilian certifications here: [24] . "Sk8 do Matheus" has been certified Gold, and "Sk8 do Matheus" has been certified Double Platinum. -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CampoGrande News would be local news, which is not allowed under the citation guidelines .  The Jornal do Comércio seems to mostly check out but not be very notable- there is also no "about" section to verify editorial status.  Also, the current state of the article falls under WP:CITATIONOVERKILL .  Correio do Povo is owned by Grupo Records, which may been contracted with Froid as a producer at the time making it primary.  Also, again, pro-musicabr is owned by the Brazilian government and is perennial- good starting place but doesn't prove notability.  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 06:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. Local news are allowed as references.  2. O Jornal do Comércio even has a wiki article, and it doesn't have to be notable to be used as a notabilily proof.  Et cetera...  And could you please stop bolding everything?  Especially random guideline shortcuts?  -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 07:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And how doesn't a detailed Correio do Povo article not prove notability? -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 07:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do the bolding thing in case someone has sight problems or dyslexia and wants to easily check the counterpoints I lay forth, and yeah, it does kinda seem pompous, but I assure you that isn't the intention.  The thing that makes this very difficult compared to most AFDs is that normally I could just run sources through this , but unfortunately the other editors are overly concerned with English sources.  Correio do Povo is a fine source looking further into it- I was under the assumption it was a record label which would have lost it's credibility.  The point stands on O Jornal do Comércio , however- no about section means there is no way to verify editorial methods and background check editors.  Refer to this essay's line as to why local news sources are a bad idea.  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 17:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, that's one...  You can admit this one is a reliable source...  Now, Shifter , too, has a wiki article in Portuguese (see pt:Shifter ).  And Meon is frequently used there, see the search results .  And portalrapmais.com too: [25] .  And, as I have said before, these sources are just a bonus cause Froid "has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country," which is WP:MUSICBIO #3.  -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 16:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please link the Shifter article about him?  Also, I don't really get your point about Meon being cited on Portuguese Wikipedia- there are different citation rules there.  If you could show Meon being cited on English Wikipedia, then there is a case to be made.  To quote from earlier in the discussion "first thing that's wrong with this one is @ Moscow Connection 's claim that he passes WP:MUSICBIO #3 - he does not. The paragraph immediately above this states "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. " UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. This Shifter article: [26] .  (Why couldn't you find it?)  2. Meon is used here on the Enwiki too: [27] .  (There are at least 7 articles not counting "Froid (rapper)". )  3. "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." – But isn't the claim (of Froid's records having been certified Gold and Platinum) "properly verified by a reliable source independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials"?  Is Pro-Música Brasil owned by Froid or what?  (The reference has been here the whole time, and you should have seen it, but here it is: [28] .) -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 16:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. It's been difficult to find your articles through Google- searching 'Meon' or 'Meon News Portugal' brings up nothing (same with Shifter ).  Shifter has the same problem the Jornal do Comércio had with no about section to verify editorial methods or staff.  Also, I got little information out of the article- it seemed they were just trashing on the album and using meaningless jargon (ex: It is impossible not to “violate the replay button”;  not only because of the complexity of the lyrics that require successive listenings until the message is fully recognized, but also because of the sound, a reflection of a mix of influences that result in the Worst Album of the Year . It's not an album of ad-libs  or catchy bars , but the musicality is addictive, a result of the simplicity of the samples used.)  2. Could you link his article again, please?  3. Even if it was owned by Froid, I would have no clue because the website has no about section to verify editorial methods.  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 17:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. « Shifter has the same problem the Jornal do Comércio had with no about section to verify editorial methods or staff.» – There is an about section, couldn't you find it?  You can also click on the article's author to see that he specializes in music.  2. Press Ctrl^F and find it on this page.  3. " Even if it was owned by Froid, I would have no clue because the website has no about section to verify editorial methods. " – Why would you want to verify the editorial methods of the Pro-Música Brasil website?  Pro-Música Brasil is the Brazilian Association of Record Producers.  And I what I linked is not even an article and therefore it wasn't edited by anyone.  (Except for the header note.)  I'm sorry, now I'm out of this discussion.  If this gets deleted, I will just submit a deletion review.  -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 17:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pro-Música Brasil is owned by a governmental agency, which means the source isn't secondary and can be used but not to prove notability.  As with you, I've gotten my dose of AFD for now and also am out here unless I'm needed again.  Cheers, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is totally incorrect what you are saying.  You hijacked this discussion, voted "delete", and you don't even understand what a secondary source is. (And Pro-Música Brasil is not "owned by a governmental agency", where did you even take that from? And even if it was, who cares? The rapper is not the president of Brazil, and the article doesn't discuss any controversial political subjects.) I hoped you'd change your vote...  But you still can't understand you are wrong...  Read " Wikipedia:Competence is required ".  If can't read the sources I have provided and can't navigate the Portuguese-language websites used as references, you shouldn't participate in this discussion.  The whole time, you just kept repeating "there is no way to verify editorial methods".  -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 00:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, @ Moscow Connection , I have actually been participating in the deletion review process and vetting each of your sources, of which you only seem to check through yourself once I bring up a point against them.  As I'll get to in a minute, your claims that I've "hijacked" the discussion are unfair and problematic.  For now, I got the claim of Pro-Música Brasil being "owned by a governmental agency" from it's own Wikipedia page .  I finally got you the policy to back that up here .  Now for your problematic comments: You hijacked this discussion, voted "delete", and you don't even understand what a secondary source is. I participated in this discussion, voted delete upon reviewing your evidence given at the time (which, apparently, I wasn't the only one who thought it wasn't enough to prove notability given someone else nominated it and 3 other users voted delete), and do, in fact, understand what a secondary source is.  And even if it was, who cares?  See reason given in paragraph before this list.  I hoped you'd change your vote...  But you still can't understand you are wrong...  So... you weren't really participating in the discussion, you were just hoping for your predetermined outcome to come true if you debated long enough?  Read " Wikipedia:Competence is required ".  I did, and guess what?  It's not meant to be used as an attack in the way you're using it.  If can't read the sources I have provided and can't navigate the Portuguese-language websites used as references, you shouldn't participate in this discussion.  I can read the sources due to Google translate, so please quit assuming I can't.  There is no section labeled "about" or such and I'm not fishing to find it.  Link it if you want.  This whole time you've been awfully snarky about everything and assuming I'm acting in bad faith .  Please keep this civil going forward; I've been trying to ignore this but you keep trying to get a reaction out of me. I really am trying to have a normal discussion here, but I'm done being talked down to.  Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 03:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  I see a rough consensus to Delete but there is an ongoing discussion about the viability of sources supplied in this discussion.  Unfortunately, the burden falls on those editors wanting to Keep an article to provide reliable sources that other participating editors can evaluate.  It would help the discussion considerably if you didn't make this personal and attack each other.  This discussion is about notability and adequate SIGCOV, assume good faith that even editors who disagree with you are trying their best to carry out Wikipedida principles.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz I've tried repeatedly to participate in this deletion discussion and this user keeps disregarding my reasoning behind why the sources aren't valid.  I don't feel as though I'm being taken seriously and that the other user isn't going to take this discussion anywhere.  I also don't feel like logging in anymore because of this.  UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 19:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : The user keeps repeating the same stuff about "editorial methods".  I wonder where he even took that from.  He sounds like a kid who copies what the "cool" Wikipedia editors do.  I think his comments should be just disregarded.  (Fgs, he can't find an "about us" link, which is in plain view. And he can't find a link on this very page and keeps asking me to post the same links over and over. And he thinks that a search result is an article and keeps repeating that the Brazilian Association of Record Producers is owned by the Brazilian government. If he doesn't have the technical or Portuguese language or whatever skills necessary to read the sources and even this very page, he should not participate in this discussion.)  I didn't want to login on Wikipedia because of this...  Could it be that he was just trolling?  And, btw, I've expanded the article.  The article as nominated was very bad, now it is better.  -- Moscow Connection ( talk ) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep After reviewing the above discussion and evidence - I agree with Moscow Connection .   This artist meets WP:MUSICBIO , in particular verified 2 singles certified gold or above, and I'm seeing at least 3 articles with sigcov secondary coverage referenced in the article.  Resonant Dis tor tion 18:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO .  - Davidships ( talk ) 04:30, 18 January 2024 (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: no consensus