Tilcayo Cats:Articles for deletion/Victor Thompson (musician)
__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Victor Thompson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is nothing that supports WP:MUSIC here and certainly nothing approaching WP:GNG because there is no significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability, and the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC. See the source assessment table below. Independent sources are not present here because the sources are routine announcements usually lifted from press releases.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No music distribution and publishing service | No No on-wiki consensus but it's lack of independence says no | No Just a few lines of copy | ✘ No | |
| No Interview marked as advertisement | ~ A subject can never be a wholly reliable source for themselve due to the human condition's inherent cognitive biases | No Not really, there's no critical analysis | ✘ No | |
| ~ Appears to be promoting a new release | No Any publication that publishes sentences like, "he has curved a niche for himself in the much competitive music industry." probably doesn't take it's editorial standards seriously. They haven't even proofread their copy so how can we rely on this pulication to check its facts? | No Given that this has not been written by a professional journalist I don't think it could count as significant. | ✘ No | |
| No Link to a music video | No Not a secondary source | No No secondary analysis | ✘ No | |
| No Blog post | No The consensus with blog is that they are generally unreliable and with sentences like "He was one of the contestant in The Voice Nigeria Season 2 in South Africa." it's easy to see why | No It would need to be written by a professional writer or journalist to count as SigCov | ✘ No | |
| File:Blue question mark (italic).svg It appears to just be a site that hosts rather hagiographic sounding biographies. | No No on wiki-discussion, yet. | File:Blue question mark (italic).svg Difficult to tell with further inquiry | ✘ No | |
| File:Blue question mark (italic).svg Interview marked as an advertisement | ~ Because this is marked as an advert we can't say that this particlar article is a reliable source although the publication might be reliable contingent on an on-wikiconsensus. Then again, that first sentence says to me that their editorial policies aren't that robust. See excerpt below | ~ It depends on the definition of significant. But with the hyperbole cranked up to 13 it's hard to tell if it's intended to be significant or just tongue in cheek | ? Unknown | |
| No Marked as an advertisement | No We can't base Wikipedia's content on adverts because then WP will end up with loads of promo pieces | No It's mostly an interview, it's marked as an advert and with sentences like "Mr. Thompson, while speaking during media chat with journalists" journalistic or editorial standards are clearly not this puclication's number one priority | ✘ No | |
| File:Blue question mark (italic).svg Page containing various music vieos with little text - primary | No Not relaible for establishing notability | No Just a line or two | ✘ No | |
| No Link to a music hosting site | No Doesn't appear to be. No on-wiki consensus | No Just a line or two | ✘ No | |
| File:Blue question mark (italic).svg Relationship between subject and publication is not immediately clear | No Regarding resounding Nigerian praise and worship songs, Nigeria ranks among the top countries with many worship song artists in Africa.... Doesn't sound like the verbiage of a reliable source for Wikipedia to me. | No Not clear how this relates to the subject | ✘ No | |
| Yes Billboard chart | Yes Safe to assume that Billboard is reliable | No Just a chart listing page | ✘ No | |
| File:Blue question mark (italic).svg No clear indication of how this chart is aggregated. | File:Blue question mark (italic).svg No on-wiki consensus as far as I am aware | No just a name, some stats and a graph | ✘ No | |
| ~ Another chart website | ~ Difficult to judge | No Just a chart | ✘ No | |
| No Appears to be aggregated from a press release because it resembles some of the other sources. The word order has just been changed around a bit. | No No on Wiki consensus but this piece's prose don't scream reliable to me. | No Just a few lines with some unusual sounding direct quotes | ✘ No | |
| Sensational piece hyping up The Headies | No Wikipedia's entry about the publication is in bad standing. Doesn't cover subject with any objective analysis | No Not immediately clear if it even mentions the subject or not? | ✘ No | |
| No Reheated press release about The Headies | File:Blue question mark (italic).svg No on wiki consensus | No Not clear whether it mentions the subject or not | ✘ No | |
| No Download link | No Not really a written source. It's just an mp3 hosting page | No Just a couple of lines | ✘ No | |
| No List of award nominees | ~ Could be reliable for the award's page but not in a BLP because it's primary | No Mentions the subeject but is not about them | ✘ No | |
| Yes Another award about the headies | ~ It might be ok as a source about The Headies but this is not Wikipedia's entry for The Heady awards | No Just mentions the artist's name. No Sig Cov or Depth | ✘ No | |
| Yes I'm going to say yes because surely no artist in their right mind would pay for a source that has a stray HTML ref in the title and a sentence that reads "Of course, history has show that such projections are speculative at best, but that hasn't stopped emotions from running at fever high levels" | No Anything this poorly written cannot be reliable | No Just a brief mention | ✘ No | |
| Yes Independent in the sense that this source is definitely not about the subject. | File:Blue question mark (italic).svg Requires a community wide consensus to determine. Doesn't seem to denote any notability to the subject in this instance. | No Just a name check | ✘ No | |
| ~ I'm pretty sure I've already seen this text in one of the other source | ~ Relaible as a source about these awards? Maybe. It depends on the on-wiki consensus. I wouldn't be inclined to use it in a BLP though | No Mentions the subject. Not about the subect. No biographical insights or critical analysis of the subect and his impact on music | ✘ No | |
| ~ Needs further nquiry and an on-wiki consensus | ~ Maybe reliable enough to support an axiomatic fact but not notability | No Mentions the subject's name | ✘ No | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
.svg){kind=link}
The subject does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC and I have created the following table to illustrate my point.
| WP:MUSIC Criterion | Meets Criterion? | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Has released two or more albums on a major record label | No | No evidence of a contract with a major label (e.g., Sony, Universal, Warner). |
| Has had multiple national charting hits | No | No known placements on major national music charts. |
| Has had a certified gold or platinum record | No | No sales certifications from RIAA, BPI, or equivalent bodies. |
| Has won a major national or international music award | No | No evidence of major industry-recognized awards. |
| Has had multiple significant reviews in reliable sources | No | No detailed analysis or critique in reputable music journalism sources. |
| Has been the subject of multiple, in-depth features in reliable sources | No | Only brief mentions and promotional content found. |
| Has performed at notable music festivals or large-scale events | No | No evidence of performances at globally recognized festivals (e.g., Coachella, Glastonbury). |
| Has had a substantial influence on a notable music genre | No | No evidence of significant influence on the music industry. |
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, I would like to apologise for my original source assessment table. I was sick, I hadn't slept in days, I dropped the ball. I'm sorry if anyone felt that I was deliberately trying to confuse them or waste people's time. That wasn't my intention. I have spent the last few hours creating a source assessment table based on the article's sources. I have delved into the source a bit more and listened to his music. My research has placed me in a difficult position. On one hand the musician in me absolutely loves his music, I think it's really great and he's clearly a very talented artist. However, my research into the sources has only served to convince me that this singer simply doesn't have the general notability criteria with this set of sources.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Note This point that I am about to make should not be interpreted as part of my nomination rationale. However, while I was doing my research I did find a CopyVio. I'm not recommending a speedy or anything. I've left a note about it on the article's talk page and I will strike through this comment because I don't want it to be misconstrued as part of my nomination.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Under TL:N, notability requires three independent, reliable, secondary sources providing significant coverage. The three best sources shown here are the Pulse Nigeria nomination list, the brief AllMusic entry and the single-paragraph OkayAfrica mention. None provides significant, lasting coverage of Victor Thompson: the first is a routine award-list entry, the second and third are short directory-style notices. No other independent secondary sources with the required depth have been supplied. Delete. Trim 05:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)