Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waka Flocka Flame

:{{la|Waka Flocka Flame}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Waka Flocka Flame}})

No reliable sources that confirm any suggestion of notability; the subject has "signed" with Warner Brothers but has released nothing but mixtapes; nothing close to meeting the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO Accounting4Taste:talk 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is relative to location, especially when it comes to musicians (and more specifically, rappers). Although I'm in California now where Waka Flocka is generally unknown, back in Atlanta, Waka Flocka has been played repeatedly in clubs and at high volume parties. In his "No Ceilings" mixtape, world-acclaimed artist Lil Wayne rapped a verse over Waka Flocka's "Oh Let's Do It." Clearly Waka Flocka has earned some respect in the rap community. I think Waka Flocka's music is the greatest representation of Atlanta rap, and although that's merely opinion, I feel that keeping his article will help provide a testament to Atlanta rap, which has gone downhill in the past several years, with other cities bringing out famous new rappers such as Dorrough in Dallas, Texas. Just my two cents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillvibes (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Number 94 in the rap chart? I quote the headline of the Ozone Magazine article (which is the only reference given at the time of this post): "Jun 2009 – Patiently Waiting: Wacka Flocka Flame". Obviously hadn't got there then. No evidence that he has yet. Some day, maybe. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to WakaFlocka1017: This is the English language Wikipedia... Peridon (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Change to Neutral, on the basis of the below sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. I was going to !vote keepStrike-through text because number 94 in the rap chart is sufficient for WP:BAND but I can't find any confirmation that this is true. Billboard.com has no listing of the [http://www.billboard.com/#/search/Waka_Flocka_Flame artist] or [http://www.billboard.com/#/search/?Nty=1&Ntx=mode%2bmatchallpartial&Ntk=Keyword&Ns=FULL_DATE%7c1&Ne=125&N=129&Ntt=O+Let%27s+Do+It the song]. Allmusic's page for the artist is [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gvftxxl5ldhe blank]. J04n(talk page) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC) plus non-trivial coverage by Ozone and MTV. Kudos for the great detective work by 86.44.59.169. Now the sources need to be incorporated into the article. J04n(talk page) 11:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Confirmation of the Billboard chart entry is on their site [http://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2009-10-24&order=gainer#/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2009-10-24&order=gainer here]. Also here are some secondary sources: [http://www.ozonemag.com/2009/07/26/jun-2009-patiently-waiting-wacka-flocka-flame/] [http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1625887/20091109/oj_da_juiceman.jhtml]. 86.44.59.169 (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The first link given by 86.44.59.169 is the same one I refer to above: "Patiently waiting" which, as I said, I consider to indicate non-arrival. I quote from the second, which is an article about OJ Da Juiceman not about the subject here: "We actually working on a me, Gucci, Waka mixtape," the Juice said. "[That's] half of the Brick Squad. I think me and Waka gonna do a mixtape first, then me, Gucci and Waka gonna do a mixtape together." Not an indication to me of anything in particular. As to being at 94 for (apparently) one week in a specialised music chart, I would not consider that particularly notable. Top 100 for a real national all-comers chart, OK. Minimum top 50 for specialised music. Depends how you take the meaning of "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.". Peridon (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• :Articles which seem to you to indicate "non-arrival" are in fact indications of arrival in the sense of wikipedia notability. Your !vote said there was no evidence of the rap chart entry: there was in fact evidence. It was clear from your tone here that you were not going to change your vote so I am unsurprised by your new position that the Billboard Hip-Hop/R&B Chart is not a national music chart. 86.44.55.53 (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

::If you look at my !voting post, you will see that I did not say there was no mention on Billboard. That came from another poster who has now struck through it. I don't have a new position. I think that reaching 94 in a specialised chart for possibly no more than one week is not notable. And is someone made notable by an article saying they're waiting for success or recognition? Or by a rather vague mention in an article about another performer? I am always prepared to change my mind. I have done so in quite a few AfDs. I see no reason to here. Go on, produce more evidence and convince me. Peridon (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I read your !vote in the most logical way, that the rest of the comment followed from the question mark, otherwise it was about an arbitrary and secret notion of "arrival". In fact all your thresholds are individual and arbitrary, while mine are based on guidelines and past consensus. There are now seven cites in the article to five sources, four of which are third-party, one of which is Billboard hence passing WP:Band, and two of which are non-trivial stories again passing WP:Band. I don't know if you are within your rights to pluck "minimum top 50 for specialised" national charts out of the air as your threshold for notability in an AFD (why not 40? why not 60? is two weeks on the chart enough? three?), but it is very frustrating that one can make that view have weight depending on who shows up to an AFD, rather than making a case for it at WP:Music and getting consensus for it. Similarly you dismiss secondary sources as not to your liking. This is the kind of thing that makes contributing to Wikipedia a waste of time.

:::I think that reaching 94 in a specialised chart for possibly no more than one week is not notable.

:::I think you are obliged to take this view to Talk of WP:Music, for as it stands you are against consensus, and this has been shown in numerous AFDs.

:::And is someone made notable by an article saying they're waiting for success or recognition? Or by a rather vague mention in an article about another performer?

:::Indeed. This = multiple non-trivial independent sources. WP:MUSIC is pretty clear on what constitutes triviality.

:::One final thing I will add just to give you something new to sway you is that what we are here are white boys googling. Wikipedia editors and fans of Southern black music are not overlapping sets. The content of Southern rap publications like Ozone or Murderdog or Street Report is by an overwhelming majority print-only (it is only by luck that we have the Ozone article available to us). Likewise the two big national rap publications, The Source and XXL, save the majority of their substantive content for print (though XXL does have a decent web presence). How many of us are thumbing through this year's issues of publications like these for sources here? None. Does it seem likely based on what we have found that they exist? Certainly. 86.44.16.244 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

::Am I a 'white boy'? My racial origins are not listed on my user page - partly because they are irrelevant and partly because they are somewhat uncertain. Wikipedia editors and fans of Southern black music may not be overlapping sets. Someone has become an editor in order to put this article here. The same rules apply. I am not a deletionist per se. Bring the thing to the required level and I am prepared to change my mind. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:::We're here to decide if the subject is notable, not jump through hoops based on your judgment. If you think your !vote is sound, then you can rest easy that it will be weighed with the rest at close. 86.44.57.162 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. "Oh Let's Do It" is charting, and it is especially popular here in the Birmingham metro area on WBHJ, our urban contemporary station. Dalekusa (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

::Reference? Sorry, but your statement doesn't count as a reliable reference. If you can prove that, do it. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 17:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm satisfied that this rapper meets criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO, not only because his single is currently number 94 on the R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart, but because the song is also receiving significant radio spins, as it is currently [http://charts.bdsradio.com/bdsradiocharts/charts.aspx?formatid=5 number 34 on the Urban National Airplay charts].  Gongshow ^Talk 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

::bdsradio.com looks to be an internet station run by Nielsen, who are best known for advertising and so on. To access bdsradio.com, one needs a password. Is that chart a national one - or, given its Nielsen association, even at all representative of genuine popularity? Peridon (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't need a password to access that link. However, as better evidence of the song's popularity, here is a Billboard column which notes the song debuting at [http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-pop-christian-latin-songs-1004051499.story number 24] on the magazine's Rap Songs chart.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable and there are sufficiant citations that confirm notability.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, signed to major label + charted single -Reconsider! 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

: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.