- 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. While there were two calls to keep this article, neither put forward a rationale for keeping that is supported by policy. The article is nominated for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. The only acceptable defence to this particlular deletion rationale is to provide reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in depth. Those calling for deletion judged the sources in the article not to meet this criterion and no argument was presented that sources exist that do meet this criterion.
The length of time an article has been on Wikipedia is no defence to deletion. Any article can be deleted no matter how old. For the record, the previously deleted article was at Nat (rapper) with redirects at Natalac and Sheldon Martinez Davis. This has been deleted twice before and I note that the deleting admin felt it necessary to salt the page. It appears that the article was only created at this title because the original title is protected. This is not the right way to proceed; the correct thing to do is to request unprotection of the page. For that reason I am going to salt this title also.
The argument that the page falls outside the unsourced BLP deadline date is inapplicable. It is arguable that it does indeed fall outside this deadline because it is based on the previous article (and I will be asking user:Euryalus why the history was not preserved) but this only prevents deletion under the BLP Prod process. This current debate is a full deletion debate and overrides that process.
The bottom line is that although references have been added to the article, and some of them may be reliable, none of them were claimed to have the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. Spinning Spark 11:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis
- Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Artist from Natalac Records which is also up for deletion. There are a few sources, but nothing reliable and nothing in-depth. Fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 ( talk) 03:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep These Wikipedia Pages since previously has been on for 10 years, but after 10 years later demoted to User Draft because of improper format and lack of references" Now some references have been added.... I believe as a artist grows so do their enemies... Yameka ( talk) 08:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep Thanks for the nomination. Well, I only improved the page and also added some references.
Actually, the Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis page was created long before March 18, 2010, (about 10 years ago).
Now this wikipedia policy says: Unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs) created after March 18, 2010, can be proposed for deletion using a special proposed deletion process. Refer to these 2 links
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
So, it means, the Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis shouldn't be deleted since it was created before March 18, 2010.
Aside from that, I've improved the page and added some references. Let other editors make their inputs Benleg4000 ( talk) 10:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you for the two keep !votes above. As discussion regarding deletion are based on consensus and not vote count, I am hoping that you can help me see the rational behind your votes. There is a process to propose deletion; however, there is also this process which I felt best so that we can get a consensus on the issue. Also, there is no guideline that stating pages created before or after a certain date must be kept/deleted based on their date of creation. The reason for recommending this - and the others - for deletion is that there are no reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Can you provide some in depth sources that cover the subject? There is a possibility that I missed them as I do make mistakes. I would be happy to look at these and withdraw the nomination if they are reliable. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to Comment I only used the Search Engine you provided for Reliable sources "High Beam" cause it was offered and I found that Natalac is the Trademarked Word owner By Sheldon Davis Ty for the High Beam Search engine - https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3655765341.html
I went Further to look through other government sites looking for reliable resource info on Corporation Searches - and Found Natalac Records and Natalac Express in Good Standings - http://www.sos.sc.gov/index.asp?n=18&p=4&s=18&corporateid=704935 Express, http://www.sos.sc.gov/index.asp?n=18&p=4&s=18&corporateid=704934 Records these should cover Natalac, Natalac Records and Natalac Express as reliable Resources Yameka ( talk) 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you @ Yameka. These are sources but I do not feel they are reliable. Of course, that is just my opinion. Owning a trademark would not necessarily make that person notable. Also, High Beam is an archive database, not a reliable source in itself. Anything found on High Beam would need to be judged based on the original publication from where it was taken. If you look at WP:RS you will get a better understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. I know there is a lot of information at that link, but sources that meet that guideline are what will be needed for me to withdraw the nomination. Hope you understand. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your welcome::: Ok, I only used the search engine you provided as Reliable and wrote what i found as Sheldon Davis owning the Trademark on Natalac i really had no idea. So heres the original Publication from United States Patent and Trademark Office http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86372570&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch The other two Links I provided were Government source Information That Proves ownership of the Mark Natalac and his Trucking and Record Businesses. I only thought Reliable - consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted. My apologies but After Reading WP:RS I see Natalac has Bio publications in MTV, and 24 hour Hip Hop article pictured with Styles P which is noted as references maybe you may have missed, That is a Highly regarded Magazine in hip hop culture I think that is a Notable Article / Magazine publication Just asking you may have missed. If Not My apologies, I'll wait for others Editors to weigh in. While i look at other Hip Hop Artists References and Articles on Wikipedia to further educate my self on Reliable and in-depth information. Yameka ( talk) 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nominator -- this artist doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for musicians. I also note that the sentence in the text that asserts a "radio hit" for the subject is sourced to a web page that simply gives the lyrics to the song. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 09:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best actually and draft & userfy instead if needed, not enough for the convincing applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 February 2016 (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.