The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Zeke[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

DJ Zeke (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)

A non-notable DJ. Previously deleted via PROD.

Note: there is a "DJ Zeke Thomas" [1][2] who appears to be a different individual. KH-1 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since his notability passes WP:NMUSIC and his work as a DJ in hip hop has been covered in multiple independent sources.
Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are mainly passing mentions of the DJ. St John's University and The Torch (student newspaper) do cover the person in depth but are not truly independent.-KH-1 (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The independent third-party sources are articles from Rolling Stone, Ebony Magazine and other well-known news sources that are considered very reliable sources on Wikipedia according to WP:RSP.
The in-depth articles that you mentioned have publication dates that go all the way back to 2006. There have been articles about the DJ that have been published this year. Notability can be established for the DJ because this falls under the WP:SUSTAINED section of notability from the Wikipedia notability guideline which states that "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability." Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these article from Rolling Stone or Ebony, they aren't linked in the article and aren't given here... Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles from Rolling Stone and Ebony magazine are there in the references on the Wikipedia page. The in-depth article[3] and the Rolling Stone article[4] have publication dates of 2006 and 2011, respectively. The music publications and cultural magazines XXL, Complex and Ebony magazine[5][6][7][8] have all covered the DJ over the years with the last Ebony magazine article being as recent as June of this year.
This establishes notability for the DJ since the WP:SUSTAINED section of Wikipedia's guideline on notability states that attention over a sufficiently significant period of time and "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability." The DJ also passes the notability for musicians according to WP:NM. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was arrested for drunk driving, so there's coverage of that event. Some coverage for being the son of Isiah Thomas the basketball player [9], he shares his favorite pop culture moments here [10], very much a fluff piece. His sister had Covid, he's playing a set at xyz club. I'm not seeing notability. Only brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources above, ABC News is fine, he was sexually assaulted and starred in a commercial about prevention. The second link I'm not certain it's a RS. Still not enough for notability I think. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This table is complete and up to date as of 23 September 2023

Source assessment table: prepared by User:KH-1
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Ebony.com" Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
"torchonline" ? Student magazine, may or may not be considered independent of subject Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ? Unknown
"XXL Mag" Yes Yes Yes Mentions the DJ in multiple paragraphs alongside Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. ✔ Yes
"Rolling Stone" Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
"St John's University" No Alma mater, not truly independent of subject Yes Yes Primarily about subject ✘ No
"Collegiatetimes" Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
"Complex" Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
"globalspin365" Yes ? ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ? Unknown
"Pace" ? ? ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ? Unknown
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)).
This table is an updated source assessment table from an earlier version of a similar table. This table follows the template used in Template:Source_assess_table. Both the previous version of the table and this table are in agreement that Ebony Magazine, Rolling Stone, XXL and most of the articles used are reliable news sources and independent of the subject. The only difference is the significant coverage section of the source assessment table.
According to the overall assessment section of the source assessment table documentation, if "One or more criteria are "~" (partial) and all the rest are "yes" then an article falls under partially meeting GNG. The DJ has had multiple news sources that qualify for this along with media coverage over many years. One of the articles is from 2006 and a few articles from reliable publications have mentioned the DJ this year. This is over 15 years of coverage in the media and this significant time period of coverage falls under WP:SUSTAINED from the official notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This table is complete and up to date as of 8 August 2023

Source assessment table: prepared by User:KH-1
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Ebony.com" Yes Yes No Passing mention - " DJ Zeke's playlist of Afrobeats and Haitian music created a vibe where guests swayed to the beat while sipping on Rhum Barbancourt cocktails and captured their images in front of a door size Rhum Barbancourt bottle photo station" ✘ No
"torchonline" No Student magazine, not considered truly independent of subject Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
"XXL Mag" Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
"Rolling Stone" Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
"St John's University" No Alma mater, not truly independent of subject Yes Yes Primarily about subject ✘ No
"Torchonline (2)" No Student magazine, not considered truly independent of subject Yes Yes Primarily about subject ✘ No
"Collegiatetimes" Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
"Complex" Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
"globalspin365" Yes ? No In the headline, but only mentioned in passing in the body of article ✘ No
"Pace" ? ? No Passing mention ✘ No
"Ebony (2)" Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ 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)).

I'm not seeing any coverage that is both independent and SIGCOV. Also when I say that it's a "passing mention", it's literally just a single sentence mention of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiphopsavedmylife: - you don't have to agree with my analysis, but don't alter the table.-KH-1 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KH-1 I updated the source assessment table based on the developing consensus of everyone here in this discussion and I had used the same overall assessment that was used in the SAT documentation but you reverted the update without leaving an edit summary for a reason why you made the change.
There is nothing in the documentation under significant coverage that mentions your phrase "passing mention." The closest thing to that is the ~Partial assessment which states "the article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail."
I respect your analysis and opinion, KH-1, but I am updating the table to fit the same assessment used in the SAT documentation and to reflect the developing consensus of the community in this AfD discussion. Please do not revert the update to the table as it will hinder progress. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TPO - "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page". Yes this is an AfD but the same principle applies. Notice that I didn't change your comments to suit my POV, I ask that you extend the same courtesy.-KH-1 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KH-1 I thought that all users in the discussion were free to edit and collaborate on the source assessment table and that there could only be one source assessment table. I see now that there can be multiple source assessment tables. I only changed the table, I never altered your comments. You clearly know the source assessment table very well. I apologize for updating your table, KH-1. I will create a separate table. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hopefully in respose to source table. Again, do not alter the contributions of other editors on a discussion page. You can rebut their claims but do not change their comments on this source table because you disagree with it, instead create your own table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going on the source table, it's a !delete. I've already !voted, but this solidifies it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Thank you letting me know and for all your hard work on Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that the source assessment table is not collaborative. I made a separate one. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source assessment chart pretty much lays it all out. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:25, 29 September 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.
More