Lsdxoxo: Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Pennsylvania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I'll add more references then??  BiggestBidder ( talk ) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're looking for extensive coverage of the person in reliable sources, not blogs or websites.  If you can find some, please share with us.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some good ones.  If you want me to add these to the article, I will.  Not sure what's wrong with the current sources though?  There isn't even much information that would need many references.  https://www.documentjournal.com/2023/05/interview-at-the-feet-of-rj-glasgow-lsdxoxo-nightlifes-deity-of-dance/ https://djmag.com/cover-features/lsdxoxo-x-education https://mixmag.net/feature/lsdxoxo-cover-interview-xl-pop-techno-berlin BiggestBidder ( talk ) 06:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not so good.  All three sources are interviews which is neither secondary nor independent of the subject.  The nom already mentioned "some coverage in DJ Mag", but the second link and another on the article are interviews with the subject.  Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 02:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article now references a significant piece in DJ Mag, a full review in Pitchfork, a bio on AllMusic and other coverage that passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The piece in DJ Mag is an interview (primary information and not independent of the subject), which does not meet GNG.  The Pitchfork source is a short review of an EP and says nothing of the subject himself.  The bio on AllMusic is not significant coverage, not RS, and submitted by a "Paul Simpson", whoever that is.  Other coverage is weaker in making a case for GNG than these which already fail.  Aside from not passing GNG, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability.  It's a remarkably low threshold to say that on a superficial level one can assume without sounding preposterous that there's a case for notability.  Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources on the article are a mix of non-RS, primary sources, not independent of the subject especially interviews, not significant coverage, which do not help make a case for notability.  Research done by the nominator, BiggestBidder, and I have turned up more of this.  Take the McCollum piece in DJ Mag on the article, probably the best source available.  It's an interview with the subject, which is primary information and not independent of the subject.  Fails WP:GNG , which is only a minimum bar presumption for notability.  Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AllMusic is an established reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources .  and has a byline written by Paul Simpson who is a staff writer at AllMusic.  The Pitchfork review is four paragraphs long and the first paragraph is biographical information directly about him, and it is also independent criticism of his music which of course is relevant to him.  The DJ Mag piece is significant coverage in a reliable source so there is enough to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I spoke to each one here.  [20] Adding a little more.  The AllMusic source, in just 280 words, is puffery and discography in all but 50 words.  Hardly prime biographic material.  The Pitchfork review on an EP has a whopping 2 sentences about him biographically, mentioning 3 cities he's lived in.  I'll repeat, the DJ Mag piece is not independent of the subject and is mostly primary sourcing, being an interview.  It's as dependent on the subject as it could possibly get.  WP:GNG does not accept this and neither does NMUSIC: "This criterion includes published works in all forms .. except for the following: .. publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" GNG is not met.  The nomination still stands.  The subject appears to be a minor DJ with a smattering of low depth coverage.  Worth reminding that GNG is not any guarantee to keep an article either.  It's a bare minimum threshold to consider notability without sounding preposterous.  Unfortunately, Lsdxoxo does not meet this low threshold.  Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 05:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think the AllMusic bio and Pitchfork review provide significant coverage of this artist; I don't buy the argument that their focus on a musician's musical output disqualifies them as sources.  Hatman31 ( talk ) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning to Keep as meets WP:MUSICBIO .   Allmusic is a reliable source with a staff writer bio, and subject also has a short bio in Resident Advisor which is also an WP:EMRS .   Seems notable enough to have done a cover mix for Mixmag - here .  Mixmag also included his single 'Burn The Witch' as one of the 120 best tracks of the decade: [21] .  Resonant Dis tor tion 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also has a residency on a major national radio station BBC Residency and has done a substantial 2 hour broadcast on Pete Tongs Essential Mix - here .   Further points which meet musicbio#12.   Lsdxoxo is more than a 'minor DJ'.  Resonant Dis tor tion 16:36, 19 June 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