Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Barbosa

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 no consensus‎. I know "No consensus" is an outcome that pleases no one but I really don't see a consensus here and the Deletes are Weak Deletes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barbosa

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:N JazzyRightdoer (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 03:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. The nominator might take a moment to provide a more compelling justification for deletion than WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - borderline notability. Multiple mentions in reliable sources per the Wikipedia Library and Google [1][2][3] but I can't find any articles providing substantial coverage. Please ping me if someone finds something. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:PRODUCER.3 with a couple charting songs Let the Music Play (Shannon song) (gold), Bad of the Heart (song) as well as a big hand in a charting album Let the Music Play (Shannon album) (gold). —siro χ o 07:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not giving a thorough explanation on the reasons for deletion. I believe this article should be deleted for Notability reasons, as all sources that I could find referencing the person, Chris Barbosa, made a passing mention of him and did not expand further. The actual page has few references, and one reference mentions Chris once and has no other mention of him. JazzyRightdoer (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:BIO. I don't see significant coverage anywhere. APK whisper in my ear 04:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editors should justify why an article needs to be deleted. That means writing more than four letters of explanation. In my opinion, the absence of an explanation should default towards not deleting. CT55555(talk) 04:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is this directed towards? Both delete votes have included reasoning. APK whisper in my ear 04:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm guessing the nom, as the reason is 4 characters long. If that's the case, I do agree, in that evidence of a WP:BEFORE is very welcome in these discussions. —siro χ o 04:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh, duh. I didn't even notice it. My apologies. APK whisper in my ear 05:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It is directed towards the nominator. To emphasize: "WP:N" is too brief for us to understand why they propose the delete the article. I realise that most experienced editors can sensibly extrapolate that might mean "My WP:BEFORE searches have indicated that the subject of this article does not satisfy notability criteria" but even that is a bit light. I would like to read how it fails to meet criteria. About two weeks ago @Liz encouraged the nominator to give us a bit of detail about why it should be deleted. I see they have not done so. I think that procedurally editors ought to say why an article should be deleted and if they don't do so, we should not busy ourselves trying to assess things in order to rebut such a vague statement. CT55555(talk) 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, JazzyRightdoer is a new editor. I left a note at their talk page explaining the situation and asking them to rejoin our conversation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that the nominator has explained why they think we should delete this article, I looked into it. I see the subject of the article passes (in my opinion) WP:CREATIVE for their role in producing a volume of notable work (detailed above by another keep voter). Their work is so notable that two pieces of work have their own wikipedia articles, seems like a classic notability by CREATIVE to me. Justification to delete reminds me of many similar arguments made by editors who don't appreciate that writing about their work is how creative professionals are noted. CT55555(talk) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (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.