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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diggy Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. Sources are not significant or independent. His father is a notable rapper, but Diggy Simmons has not accomplished very much on his own, and not enough to pass WP:NMUSIC. No charts. No notable awards. This article has been recreated after being deleted as result of the last AfD. Ei1sos (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would the BET Awards nomination, which occurred subsequent to the previous AFD, qualify as a "major music award" as denoted in criterion 8 of WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles? N419BH 22:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Well, my answer, anyway, to what I think is a good question. No, the BET Awards nomination in the "YoungStars" category is not a "major music award", for two reasons. First, it is not a music award--two or three of the other nominees are actors, not musicians (they also have a sports category, etc.). Second, the BET awards shows are just that--shows. I cannot find documentation of how nominees or winners are selected. Note: I would consider performing on this show as evidence towards notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For his own music career, does seem to have achieved some small notice, but not at a level that I would yet call notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely notable in the rap game. Every real rap fans know Diggy. If stuff like Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry is a legit article, then Diggy definitely qualifies.--NWA.Rep (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, every real rap fan knows notable person Run's kid, from Run's reality show--> WP:NOTINHERITED. I think that your other argument runs along the lines of: "If the bar is so ridiculously low that even XYZ article makes it in, then surely this article, however low in notability, is at least not *as* ridiculously low, and so should make it in." I think that the guideline would be that you should focus on removing XYZ, rather than adopting an "anything goes" policy. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No my beef is that the the Wikipedia community holds a vendetta against hip hop oriented articles. I challenge the posters here to nominate Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry for merge/deletion. I know no one would do it. I have seen tons of legit hip hop articles with citations get deleted or repeatedly nominate for deletion until it is ultimately deleted. And the AFD are usually sneaked through with only inputs from 3 or 4 people. Yet when most people are supporting to "keep" an article, the AFD is extended indefinitely until they recruit enough people to form a so-called "consensus" to delete the article.--NWA.Rep (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. this community is weird sometimes. It's beyond my comprehension how Diggy Simmons can be considered "not notable". He's on tracks with Lupe Fiasco, Mindless Behavior and Pharrell Williams, he was a major character in a popular television show, he's famous; the average person in America will know who he is. He's a Youtube star. Each of his videos gets millions of hits. He has his own clothing line, which has been mentioned in several publications. He is a rapper who is signed to a major record label. How much more notable do you guys need him to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.80.176 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "He's on tracks with..."--> WP:NOTINHERITED

- "he was a major character in a popular television show". Yeah, his famous father's reality TV show--> WP:NOTINHERITED. And where do you get "popular" from? I can't really seem to find more than WP:ROUTINE coverage, looking in Google, and it's WP entry's only external entries, to imdb and tv.com, seem to link only to non-notable, routine coverage, as well. If I'm feeling motivated, I will flag it for lack of notability and lack of sourcing; should probably be merged into Run's page

- "he's famous". Fame alone is not enough to meet notability, especially when it's a family member's reflected fame--> WP:NOTINHERITED

- "He has his own clothing line, which has been mentioned in several publications." Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Is there any evidence that he's sold a single thing, let alone significant coverage from a RS?

- "signed to a major record label". This is not a criterion of WP:MUSICBIO --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: Diggy Simmons meets #1 and #10 (and probably #11, but that would be hard for me to cite) in WP:NMUSIC, his music has been featured in an AT&T commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.80.176 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard for you to cite #1 and #10, as well. At least Gongshow gave it a shot for #1 (below), but failed. What do you got for #10? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At the least, subject meets criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Aside from the expected MTV coverage (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6]), articles also exist at Billboard ([7]), XXL ([8], plus significant coverage in this issue of the magazine), Vibe ([9]), Daily News ([10]), BET ([11][12]) and RedEye ([13]). Concerns with WP:NOTINHERITED are understandable, and most of these write-ups indeed make note of subject's famous family; however, the focus is on some aspect of Diggy's own career - released mixtapes/upcoming album, singles, clothing line, etc. Further, his inclusion on such Billboard features as their ranking of the 21 hottest musicians under the age of 21 ([14]) and "Artists To Watch 2011" ([15]) also helps to suggest that this person is notable in his own right.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No the subject does not meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. I appreciate your providing additional citations, but I don't think that any of them are useful for satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. Let's just go through them:

- MTV coverage. You are right, it is expected--he was on his famous father's MTV reality show. Fails independence big-time.

- Billboard. Primarily consists of subject talking about himself and his career. WP:MUSICBIO excludes "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves".

- XXL. Brief interview where subject primarily talks about himself.

- XXL issue. The link is to a picture, plus a link to the magazine article. The article isn't even an interview, it's literally an essay entirely of the subject talking about himself.

- Vibe. Another interview, subject talking about himself.

- Daily News. Another interview.

- BET. The first link is a snippet of interview, with subject talking about you-know-who. The second is a small item that's about one-third simple release info, excluded by WP:MUSICBIO as "trivial coverage", and two-thirds quotes from his management company, which isn't exactly an independent source.

- RedEye. More of subject talking about himself.

- More Billboard links. Okay, the pictures that the various outlets of the hype machine use are starting to repeat themselves, and the quotes, and the snippets from the press kit. Eyes glazing over. Getting sleepy, very sleepy... --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From the most recent discussions I could find on the topic of WP:MUSICBIO and interviews (here and here), there seems to be some agreement - or perhaps allowance is a better word - regarding interviews in reliable publications, assuming they are not a form of self-publicity or press release. To quote User:Jclemens: "If someone is interviewed in Rolling Stone, they're notable. If someone is interviewed for an independent podcast, that's zero contribution to notability." Another editor, User:Paul Erik, elaborated on the "letter versus the spirit" of the criterion in this AfD, in which another editor, User:Ron Ritzman, added: "If an independent journalist decides to write about them and that coverage happens to include an interview, then 'someone else' has 'taken note' of them and that's the kind of notability we need." Further, I think there is a distinction to be made between pieces like the RedEye article, which reads like a traditional Q&A interview, and those like the Billboard article, which reads as a news story interspersed with quotes. All that said, while I'm inclined to agree with the reasoning of the editors I've referenced above, I fully acknowledge that there is plenty of room for interpretation.  Gongshow ^Talk 03:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't interviewed in Rolling Stone, was he? And all of the interviews/puff-pieces+quotes sound like they are coming out of the same PR kits, don't they? And even if you don't think that and want to view them in the most positive spirit possible, isn't the gist of the articles "yeah, sure, he's famous 'cuz he's Run's kid, but we think he has the potential to do something great" ? --> WP:CRYSTALBALL --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stone quote was to provide one example of a reliable source; certainly there are others. Regarding the rest, as I noted in my initial comment, most of the sources indeed note his Simmons family connection. However, to use the Billboard article for example, it's merely a passing mention, while there is significant coverage for Diggy himself, including one of his mixtapes and one of the songs from it.  Gongshow ^Talk 04:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will sound harsh, please forgive me, but I am trying to say "no" here: Was that the mixtape that was removed from WP on lack-of-notability grounds, or the other one that no one even tried to put in? Can you provide even a single to-the-point, rock-solid RS, or a couple of halfway-decent ones that aren't fluff, fluff, fluff? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That an article doesn't exist for an album, mixtape or song doesn't make the artist non-notable. I am only suggesting that there exists significant coverage for the artist in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At a minimum, I am satisfied he passes WP:GNG, and at worst, he also meets the spirit of WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I took a stab at re-writing the body of the article, incorporating several of the above sources along with some others. I also learned, for what it's worth, that the subject - as a featured artist - has reached the US and UK singles charts, and as the lead artist on the US R&B/Hip Hop chart.  Gongshow ^Talk 16:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nominator, no indication of notability, and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Gelobet sei (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yes, WP:GNG , although not highly notable - significant coverage.. has charted in the uk and the us.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - artist has 3 charted singles in the US/UK - doesn't that satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criteria? Sesameball^Talk 08:38, 27 September 2011 (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.