Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anisha Nicole (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination, no delete !votes, therefore meeting WP:SKCRIT criterion #1. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anisha Nicole[edit]

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

User:Donaldd23 has a point. This article has been tagged for notability for four years, and the tag has remained without the article making a better case for WP:GNG. Subject doesn't meet it, may only be here because of her famous relatives, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Inclined to keep. I found some coverage ([1], [2], [3]) but the main claim to notability is the charting single. This is where I'm struggling, because I can see in the 2003 Billboard Music Yearbook on GBooks that she reached no. 16 on a Billboard chart in 2003 and no. 89 on another ([4]), but on the billboard.com site I can only see no. 89 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart ([5]). The article, meanwhile, claims it reached no. 3 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart and also reached number 16 on the Billboard Hot 100. So potentially notable for a hit single, but it needs a bit more digging to find out exactly which places she hit on which charts. This (you can see more of it in GBooks search results than in the preview) states that at the time she had "scored a national hit with the single "No Means No," which shot up to No. 18 on Billboard's Hot 100 chart and No. 4 on the magazine's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart", which suggests the claims in the article are probably correct, and that she is notable, but this issue of Billboard shows it at no. 20 on the Hot 100 Singles Sales (not the Hot 100 itself), so maybe this is the chart being referred to. Either way she's had enough of a hit to satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and we have enough coverage for a well-enough sourced stub. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2, because the single "No Means No" was on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Sales chart, reaching #19. I added a citation from Google Books. Hot 100 Singles is listed as a preferred chart at WP:GOODCHART. Reaching #4 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales chart is also sufficient. Reaching #89 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart is also sufficient.[6], so the bio meets MUSICBIO on at least three charts that are listed as acceptable for this standard. Could go on talking about other kinds of coverage to meet GNG, but it's unnecessary as far as AfD is concerned. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- MUSICBIO says she "may" be notable. The sourcing just isn't there. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. You don't think there's sufficient sourcing to establish that the song was on these charts? Or that MUSICBIO is actually pointless, because if a topic meets the criteria there, that isn't really enough, and some other unspecified criteria are also needed? Is it "just not there" because you say so? It seems like you're making a kind of nebulous argument. WP:GNG says it's notable if "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Either this, or that. One or the other. Over on the right, we have Wikipedia:Notability (music) and this bio meets the criteria. You aren't required to change your !vote to keep if you choose not to, but I don't see you making any argument other than "it's just not notable". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)::[reply]

I thought I was sufficiently clear throughout this by citing GNG that I don't believe this has the sourcing to be notable. That's the whole purpose of the general notability guideline. It meets that subject-specific guideline, without good in-depth sourcing to justify it. That's fine. It was mentioned at my RfA that I lean deletionist and your comment reminds me of that. So, in the spirit of good faith, I'm withdrawing this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist satisfies WP:MUSIC for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." That has been well established in the article by reliable, independent sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2018 (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.