Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason van Wyk

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Jason van Wyk}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Jason van Wyk}})

Non notable musician who doesn’t meet WP:GNG and fails WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note - The article's main editor, who has done little in WP beyond the articles for this musician and his albums, has removed the AfD notice twice (so far). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

::The musician also had four album articles, all created by the same user and dependent on announcements from the personal websites of the musician and/or record companies (one got a couple of brief blog-style reviews). I have redirected the albums to the musician's article so they do not fall through the cracks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Created by a probable single-purpose account, and note that the article refers to the musician by his first name. That is done by oneself or a passionate fan who is likely to exaggerate. Despite the many sources in the article, those that are not about other people are from the musician's own website and social media, plus some record company and directory listings. He does have some blog reviews (e.g. [https://independentclauses.com/jason-van-wyk-attachment-and-opacity/]) but he has not been noticed by the independent music media. Does not meet the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:SIGCOV. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep -

::DOOMSDAYER520 -- Created by a probable single-purpose account. The article's main editor, who has done little in WP beyond the articles for this musician and his albums

Not an SPA. Just a fan that has been following this musician’s career for many years. I will make a concerted effort to contribute to more articles outside of this topic.Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

::DOOMSDAYER520 -- has removed the AfD notice twice (so far)

Apologies regarding this. Won't happen again in future articles. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

::DOOMSDAYER520 -- or a passionate fan who is likely to exaggerate.

No exaggeration. Everything I’ve contributed has been taken from reliable sources. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

::DOOMSDAYER520 -- Despite the many sources in the article, those that are not about other people are from the musician's own website and social media, plus some record company and directory listings.

I have removed some of the sources that link to his website and replaced them with independent sources. There are links to other works, such as the films he’s worked on which are technically about other people, but he acted as a composer on those films, so those are still valid. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

::DOOMSDAYER520 -- and note that the article refers to the musician by his first name.

Didn’t realize this was an issue on here. If so, I’ll be happy to change it to his last name. The reason I used his first name is that it works better than "van Wyk" when used at the start of a sentence. "van Wyk" is correctly spelt with a lower case "v", but when doing so at the start of a sentence, it doesn't look correct to me. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

::DOOMSDAYER520 -- The musician also had four album articles, all created by the same user and dependent on announcements from the personal websites of the musicians and/or record companies (one got a couple of brief blog-style reviews). I have redirected the albums to the musician's article so they do not fall through the cracks.

These releases have been covered by notable blogs and news outlets. I’ve updated the page today with more sources showing this. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

::WP:GNG - Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

::WP:MUSICBIO - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

I've used at least three main-coverage, independent interviews with him as sources on this page as well as on his album pages. Reviews of his albums from creditable publications have been included as sources as well. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - It's nice to see my name repeated so many times, but we can let the community evaluate each side of the argument. However I think you need to become more familiar with Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source" at WP:RS. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Sourcing fails to meet the bar of WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NBIO, or WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Artist passes WP:MUSICBIO.

:WP:MUSICBIO - Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

:Artist is signed to Black Hole Recordings - One of the most established and influential record labels in the Electronic Dance Music scene that has been around since the mid 90's. Artist has had seven releases with them. The label was co-founded by Tiesto and has many notable artists on it's roster including Paul Oakenfold and BT.

:Artist passes again with two albums on independent label Home Normal, which includes artist's on their roster such as David Toop and Bvdub. Socrates 2 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

:::Just note that the first sentence of WP:NMUSICBIO says that meeting any of the listed criteria may make the musician notable (not must or definitely). So being on those labels helps Mr. van Wyk a bit but he still needs help from the other criteria, especially reliable media coverage, which as we've already seen is in short supply. Meanwhile, those labels may well be long-established but whether or not they're "major" depends on how you read their own promotional materials. See also Record label#Major labels and the following section on independent labels. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

:::*Comment - Home Normal I'd classify as independent. Black Hole is independent too, but definitely one of the biggest ("major") within the Trance music and EDM music scene. WP:NMUSICBIO also states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." - I've posted three separate, independent, full coverage interviews with van Wyk as sources. Also, van Wyk is a film composer and composed the score for the film Triggered released by Samuel Goldwyn Films - A notable film studio and distributor which is part of The Samuel Goldwyn Company. Socrates 2 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

::::*{{u|Socrates 2}}, please note that you are only allowed to !vote once, so one of your two "keep" votes should be struck out. Richard3120 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

:::::*{{u|Richard3120}} My mistake. I've renamed the one "Keep" to "Comment". Socrates 2 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Per DOOMSDAYER. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Per WynLib. Wynlib40 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Provide time to upgrade the record if needed. "Notability" is very seriously biased in favour of certain environments even if structured as per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO

Keep - Artist is notable and sources are correct. --Scottlogan189 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

::Nobody is arguing whether the sources are correct or not, it's whether they pass WP:RS and demonstrate notability. And you may be a genuine editor, but it doesn't look good that this is your first Wikipedia edit in more than five years, and most of your edits are about this subject. Richard3120 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Igloo magazine in a respectable e-zine with an editorial board. I would consider that an independent source that is significant coverage. Likewise, the Vancouver Weekly source is significant, but because it is an interview it lacks enough independence to count towards RS. The Ebert film review, the Criterion Collection source, and the David LaChapelle sources don't even mention van Wyk so I don't think that counts towards RS. It's not clear the Fluid Radio is anything more than a glorified blog. Headphone Commute claims independence but insists on anonymity, so there's really no way of knowing if they are truly independent because it lacks transparency. As such I would consider it an unreliable source. Everything else is directly connected to van Wyk (ie his record label) or is trivial, There are no All Music reviews, just a bare bones profile which is trivial. All together, there just isn't enough independent coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:MUSICBIO, and there are no awards or charts or any other criteria which the artist meets.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|4meter4}} The Criterion source has his name listed in the credits of the video at the end, the Taschen source has been updated to a film where his name is included in the credits on the YouTube page. I've also included an album review from Chain D.L.K. which I consider another respectable review source. Socrates 2 (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

:::OK, well then, those examples only qualify as passing mentions which, although I think editors in general use that phrase way too loosely on Afd discussions, add nothing to the notability of a topic. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, The person seems notable per MUSICBIO#10 as he has been comosers of notable films and have albums published under notable record labels. But the article content suffers from NPV concerns and is promotional, it defintely requires cleanup. Chirota (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|Chiro725}} That’s a bit of a stretch per wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Just because the label is notable, doesn’t mean all of its albums are notable. None of this artist’s albums would pass the notability criteria at WP:NALBUM. The film is notable, but none of the reviewers commented on van Wyk and his music so that seems a bit of a stretch as well.4meter4 (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|4meter4}}, Wikipedia has a definite set of guidelines based on which we decide if a musician is notable. If you read MUSICBIO#5, it says {{tq|Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels}}, which the subject satisies. Also, MUSICBIO#10 says {{tq|Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.}}, which again makes the subject notable. If you read WP:MUSICBIO carefully, you will understand my rationale has nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED and that the subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. Also, as you remarked "The film is notable, but none of the reviewers commented on van Wyk", but we don't need his music to be reviewed per under MUISICBIO#10. Chirota (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

:::::I personally wouldn't consider Blackhole Records a "major record label" but a minor one. Major labels would be Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music, BMG, Universal Music Group, PolyGram, DECCA, etc. These labels have international reach and large amounts of sales. And history. Blackhole records is a small and young operation in comparison within a niche market, and as such it's artist don't qualify under MUSICBIO#5. As for the film, MUSICBIO#10 suggests we should redirect the artist to the page on the movie itself.4meter4 (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

::::::Black Hole Recordings definitely falls within the "more important indie labels" category that WP:MUSICBIO states. It's been going since the mid 90s and has been extremely influential on the global dance music scene. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete — Per rationale by both {{u|Doomsdayer520}} and {{u|Xclusivzik}}. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep. It's no wonder this discussion has been long-going; there is so much contention on interpretations of WP:MUSICBIO, how the notability of the projects the subject has worked on adds to the notability of the subject itself, and the reliability and potential promotional-ness of the sources he's received. Ultimately, I'm basing my judgement on 4meter4's rationale plus the evidence of PR connections ruining the independence of even the most notable music publications, such as The Source and HipHopDX. I'm only voting Weak Keep for the fact that he has had his music published by an influential label, and the one film he composed was reviewed by reliable sources, even if his contributions weren't discussed in the reviews. Even then, I should take WP:INHERIT into consideration. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Having credits on notable works doesn't automatically confer notability. I don't see any depth-of-coverage to support WP:BIO, nor anything to support WP:MUSICBIO notability (#10 in itself doesn't quite cut it). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

::Comment WP:MUSICBIO #10 is not this page's only claim though. #5 - Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels - Artist passes this. Socrates 2 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

*Keep — Per rationale by both {{u|Chiro725}} and {{u|Socrates 2}}. Artist passes WP:MUSICBIO. Point 1 states: {{tq|Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.}} I see at least 10 sources that point to this musician's work from independent music sites. Igloo Magazine I hadn't heard of, but it does have an independent editorial board, so this would count. A Closer Listen is very well known in the experimental music scene and has been around for many years. That too has an independent editorial board, so I feel it counts. His interview with Vancouver Weekly counts. While Headphone Commute is a popular site, there isn't any mention of who actually writes and contributes to that site. Regardless though, we have many sources here, so I can accept it as part of a broader range of sources for this article. Point 5 states: {{tq|Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).}} This musician meets this criteria in two cases. One on Black Hole Recordings, another with Home Normal. Two important indie labels, both of which he's had more than one release with. Both labels have a long history and have many independently notable artists on their lineups. Point 10 states: {{tq|Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.}} He has composed the score for a notable feature film. If this was the page's only claim and this was the artist's only known work, I'd agree to redirect it to the film's page, but it isn't. Musician still passes point 1 and point 5 regardless. Subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. --Kevin19781 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've struck a number of sockpuppet votes on the Keep side.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

::For those wondering, all of the various "people" crossed out have been ruled sockpuppets of the same person. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.