Jordan's page was deleted due to not containing a claim to significance, under the speedy deletion process. To the contrary, the article explicitly included coverage by multiple reliable sources, including Paper and the High Plains Reader. It thus included claims not only to significance but to notability, and should be restored.
Yadáyiⁿga (
talk)
17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Actually, could an admin go through the deleting admin's deletions in-and-around the time of this deletion? I'm seeing something like 3+ deletions per minute. Given how wrong this one was, I'm worried that there are a lot more. I'm pinging @
Anthony Appleyard: as I don't want to be talking behind someone's back...
Hobit (
talk)
06:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
"
Speechless (Candyland song)" charted on Billboard, and the other two song have sufficient references, as does the short article that I tried to write before it was deleted. The
AFD states "No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article", which is what I tried to do before it was deleted. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
01:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relist the presence of socks threw off the AfD, and I didn't get a sense that the consensus was for deletion without them. Jax says he is trying to create a non-promotional article. Lets have a second look at it without the socks.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
13:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse normally a deleted musician who's since charted would be a slam dunk for a relist, but the "charting" (it was actually only 46 on the dance chart, NOT the mainstream charts) was discussed by several voters in the AFD and didn't change the result. Given the obvious spam/self-promo/socking, I'm disinclined to give any benefit of the doubt to something discussed this recently.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply - @
Starblind:, I may be inclined to agree with you in most cases, however, this article has been
blown up and started over due to extensive reference bombing. The new article no longer has reference bombing, has 3 reviews, and if the three songs were merged into this article, it would likely be notable. Therefore, the new article must be judged on its own merits. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
05:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus (I am also fine with a relist).
Two editors supported deletion: Magnolia677 and duffbeerforme. One editor supported a redirect: David Gerard. One editor supported retention or redirection: Jax 0677. Two editors supported retention: TheMagnificentist and Nikthestunned.
I am discounting the "keep" comment from Infopage100, who was blocked at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infopage100 for being a sockpuppet of TheMagnificentist. I am not discounting the comments from TheMagnificentist, who made policy-based arguments for retention, whose account was created in March 2016 so is not a new account created just to comment in this AfD, and who
has been unblocked.
Arguments for retention
The arguments for retention were that the subject meets
WP:NMUSIC for having a charted single on Billboard's
Dance/Electronic Songs chart (as argued by Nikthestunned and TheMagnificentist). Jax 0677
endorsed this line of reasoning.
A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:
It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of
Nielsen SoundScan. ...
It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources.
This week's most popular dance/electronic songs, based on radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music, club play, and streaming activity data from online music sources tracked by Nielsen Music.
Arguments for deletion
The arguments for deletion were that the subject failed
WP:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:MUSICBIO because the chart failed
WP:BADCHARTS (as argued by Magnolia677) and the article was promotional, had excessive reference spamming, failed
WP:GNG, and should be deleted per
WP:TNT (as argued by duffbeerforme).
Conclusion
The closing admins incorrectly assessed the consensus:
The closing admin cited
WP:TNT as one reason for deletion. But there was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article per
WP:TNT. Only duffbeerforme supported deletion under
WP:TNT.
Closing admins should apply
WP:TNT only if there is consensus in an AfD to do so.
The closing admin cited notability as a second reason for deletion. There was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article for notability reasons because there is a credible argument for retention under
WP:MUSICBIO for having a single chart on Billboard magazine's
Dance/Electronic Songs chart.
Jordan's page was deleted due to not containing a claim to significance, under the speedy deletion process. To the contrary, the article explicitly included coverage by multiple reliable sources, including Paper and the High Plains Reader. It thus included claims not only to significance but to notability, and should be restored.
Yadáyiⁿga (
talk)
17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Actually, could an admin go through the deleting admin's deletions in-and-around the time of this deletion? I'm seeing something like 3+ deletions per minute. Given how wrong this one was, I'm worried that there are a lot more. I'm pinging @
Anthony Appleyard: as I don't want to be talking behind someone's back...
Hobit (
talk)
06:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
"
Speechless (Candyland song)" charted on Billboard, and the other two song have sufficient references, as does the short article that I tried to write before it was deleted. The
AFD states "No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article", which is what I tried to do before it was deleted. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
01:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relist the presence of socks threw off the AfD, and I didn't get a sense that the consensus was for deletion without them. Jax says he is trying to create a non-promotional article. Lets have a second look at it without the socks.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
13:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse normally a deleted musician who's since charted would be a slam dunk for a relist, but the "charting" (it was actually only 46 on the dance chart, NOT the mainstream charts) was discussed by several voters in the AFD and didn't change the result. Given the obvious spam/self-promo/socking, I'm disinclined to give any benefit of the doubt to something discussed this recently.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply - @
Starblind:, I may be inclined to agree with you in most cases, however, this article has been
blown up and started over due to extensive reference bombing. The new article no longer has reference bombing, has 3 reviews, and if the three songs were merged into this article, it would likely be notable. Therefore, the new article must be judged on its own merits. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
05:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus (I am also fine with a relist).
Two editors supported deletion: Magnolia677 and duffbeerforme. One editor supported a redirect: David Gerard. One editor supported retention or redirection: Jax 0677. Two editors supported retention: TheMagnificentist and Nikthestunned.
I am discounting the "keep" comment from Infopage100, who was blocked at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infopage100 for being a sockpuppet of TheMagnificentist. I am not discounting the comments from TheMagnificentist, who made policy-based arguments for retention, whose account was created in March 2016 so is not a new account created just to comment in this AfD, and who
has been unblocked.
Arguments for retention
The arguments for retention were that the subject meets
WP:NMUSIC for having a charted single on Billboard's
Dance/Electronic Songs chart (as argued by Nikthestunned and TheMagnificentist). Jax 0677
endorsed this line of reasoning.
A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:
It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of
Nielsen SoundScan. ...
It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources.
This week's most popular dance/electronic songs, based on radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music, club play, and streaming activity data from online music sources tracked by Nielsen Music.
Arguments for deletion
The arguments for deletion were that the subject failed
WP:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:MUSICBIO because the chart failed
WP:BADCHARTS (as argued by Magnolia677) and the article was promotional, had excessive reference spamming, failed
WP:GNG, and should be deleted per
WP:TNT (as argued by duffbeerforme).
Conclusion
The closing admins incorrectly assessed the consensus:
The closing admin cited
WP:TNT as one reason for deletion. But there was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article per
WP:TNT. Only duffbeerforme supported deletion under
WP:TNT.
Closing admins should apply
WP:TNT only if there is consensus in an AfD to do so.
The closing admin cited notability as a second reason for deletion. There was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article for notability reasons because there is a credible argument for retention under
WP:MUSICBIO for having a single chart on Billboard magazine's
Dance/Electronic Songs chart.