Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fable: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 1: Line 1:
===[[:Dan Fable]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}


<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ Keep. —[[Special:Contributions/12.172.251.103|12.172.251.103]] ([[User talk:12.172.251.103|talk]]) 07:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
===[[:Dan Fable]]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=Dan Fable}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fable|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 4#{{anchorencode:Dan Fable}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1182429693/cur|edits since nomination]])
:{{la|1=Dan Fable}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fable|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 4#{{anchorencode:Dan Fable}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1182429693/cur|edits since nomination]])
Line 16: Line 22:
*::I posted my vote in good faith based on the content of the article. Read it and you will see his chart rankings mentioned. I have not verified the sources, but they are posted in the article if you read it. [[User:Royal88888|Royal88888]] ([[User talk:Royal88888|talk]]) 04:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
*::I posted my vote in good faith based on the content of the article. Read it and you will see his chart rankings mentioned. I have not verified the sources, but they are posted in the article if you read it. [[User:Royal88888|Royal88888]] ([[User talk:Royal88888|talk]]) 04:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::{{U|Royal88888}}, we have all read the article that's why it is here now. The second song on the lead statement is NOT his song, next time please do a research before voting, or at least leave a "comment" instead of "keep" or "delete". '''<span style="color:Purple">dxneo</span>''' ([[User talk:dxneo|talk]]) 05:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::{{U|Royal88888}}, we have all read the article that's why it is here now. The second song on the lead statement is NOT his song, next time please do a research before voting, or at least leave a "comment" instead of "keep" or "delete". '''<span style="color:Purple">dxneo</span>''' ([[User talk:dxneo|talk]]) 05:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

Revision as of 07:06, 12 November 2023

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. —12.172.251.103 (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fable

Dan Fable (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)

I'm not sure this passes NSINGER as written, and I can't turn up any new sources to push this over the edge – Fstoppers is the only secondary decently-reliable source with some amount of SIGCOV, but most of the meat of this article is sourced to interviews, most not in RSes. Yes, Fable has been involved with two charting singles, but "featured artist" and "co-writer" mean he's not really the primary artist credited with the charting – I don't think that guarantees notability against a fail of GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2. I do note that the Official Charts Company credits Venbee and Fable as equals, so I've amended the article to that effect.--Launchballer 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay, here's my question on this: how come WP:NSONG says that charting on a national chart makes the song maybe notable, but it automatically confers notability to the ~artist? even WP:MUSICBIO says those criteria don't automatically grant notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO states that subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may". dxneo (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cited sources are mostly passing mentions just like here and here, although they are credited as a primary artist on a charting song, there's no SIGCOV and a WP:BLP cannot be based on a charting song. I see here that the subject was/is signed to UMG and they would pass #5 per WP:MUSICBIO if they released at least two albums under the label but unfortunately they don't even have one. here is another two paragraph source about the subject releasing a new song. I think it's TOOSOON, maybe if they have a certified record or have been nominated for award(s) then yes they would definitely have an argument but I couldn't find any of that. Again WP:MUSICBIO states that the subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may", subject never headlined any RS news, I don't think that "may" applies here. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on his 2 charting tracks, which meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria.Royal88888 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal88888, "two" charting tracks? Which and which? Care to provide sources please? dxneo (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted my vote in good faith based on the content of the article. Read it and you will see his chart rankings mentioned. I have not verified the sources, but they are posted in the article if you read it. Royal88888 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal88888, we have all read the article that's why it is here now. The second song on the lead statement is NOT his song, next time please do a research before voting, or at least leave a "comment" instead of "keep" or "delete". dxneo (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.