Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jel (singer)

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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jel (singer)[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Musician who is not independently notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NMUSIC states that merely having an album chart in the top 200 may be enough to confer notability. When one's very first album debuts at #3, I think that's enough to turn "may be notable" into "definitely is notable." It would be unfathomable for an artist who had a #3 album on the US or UK charts to not have a Wikipedia article. Mlb96 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also was able to find WP:SIGCOV of one of this artist's live performances here (which was damn hard, because I'm not at all fluent in Japanese). Mlb96 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: It turns out that the above link is a republish, and the original version is actually here. This site has a proper editorial board and distinguishes between press releases and original pieces. This is labeled as an original piece, and the credited author doesn't seem to have any connection to the subject. So that's significant coverage in a reliable, independent, secondary source. Mlb96 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also found this piece covering a minor controversy in which he was involved. It's probably not something that I would bother mentioning on the actual article, but I'd might as well mention it here. Mlb96 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His debut solo album placed #3 on the weekly charts and he qualifies per WP:NMUSIC. Looking at his Oricon profile, he also has several articles written about him here. lullabying (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though he a No. 3 album in the chart, consensus states, as it is a WP:BLP there must be supporting references, secondary references.. Where are they? The search provided above in the Oricon profile is for the band. They are all the band. The ref at here is a clickbait site, is primary and is probably non-rs for that reason.

Ref 1 is a clickbait site and is primary.

Ref 2 is an album listing. Non-RS::Ref 3 is an album listing. Non-RS

Ref 4 a wee short paragraph. Non-RS

Ref 5 is the band, a very very short paragraph with video.

As this is a BLP where it proper secondary sources and the reviews of the album in the mainstream Japanese news? scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000176883 is not a primary source, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The Oricon search mentioned above gives articles related to him, and while many are about the band as a whole, not all of them are; some are about him individually. This Wikipedia article is about the singer, not the album, so album reviews are not necessary. Calling an affiliate of the Asahi Shimbun a "clickbait site" is pretty funny, although I will admit that that particular source is an interview and it was never intended to demonstrate notability anyway. Your analysis of source 5 is entirely wrong, it's not about the band, it's about the individual members. Talking about the length of the sources is a red herring, as even a single sentence can qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Your concern about WP:BLP is another red herring, as that is a separate issue from notability and the article satisfactorily complies with BLP policies anyway. And finally, of course, notability is not based on the sources in the article itself, so that's a third red herring.

In conclusion, you have provided absolutely no reason why we should not simply apply WP:NMUSIC here. Your argument is based on red herrings and a misunderstanding of the sources (although I don't blame you for that, as you probably don't understand Japanese and relied on a machine translation). Applying WP:NMUSIC leads us to the conclusion that the article should be kept, so that is what we should do. Mlb96 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This a BLP and it needs proper sources. Of the 16 entries in the Oricon raw search URL, 16 of them are the band, not him. The bars ref is an review of the show and is part interview

You didn't think I'd dance, did you? "You didn't think I'd dance, did you?" says a mischievous Ger. "Well, it's lonely when you're the only one singing the Supri songs. I'd like to get another one! I'd like to invite someone else! I'll be back. "I was dancing on the sleeve during 'Our Own Shangri-La'! The two of them talk in perfect harmony.

And posting NExists, when there is no other external sources, is really poor. If there is other references, post them, so we can take a look at them. There isn't a BARKS page, Japanese Music Network, but does state in the About Us page:

BARKS is a music website that aims to provide the best possible information on pop, rock and other music released in Japan today, using the technology and infrastructure of the Internet to reach as many people as possible...We have a unique structure and editorial system

The subject has zero secondary coverage out with a small part of reference 5. The rest of the references are very poor. They're is no reviews of the album. It is a case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 18:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an interview, it's quoting stuff he said during the performance. Like I said, you're misinterpreting the sources due to poor machine translation.

Also, I'd like to thank you for bringing WP:TOOSOON to my attention, because it very specifically states on that page that "It should be remembered that even in cases where a person might not meet the GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word. Editors are encouraged to also consider the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (people)." The relevant sub-criteria here being WP:NMUSIC, which is satisfied. So, in other words, it is not too soon for this article, it is exactly soon enough. Mlb96 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep quoting policy. You haven't any sources to support a BLP. Three secondary sources would do it. If cannot be a standalone article, because some fan thinks Wikipedia needs an article. If it comes to no conensus decision, in six months, if there no sources, i.e. it is still in its present, it will send it back Afd. So, please post the sources, so we can examine them. There is another person on Afd who quotes policy as well and it is also a singer. That is curious. scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is what matters here, not your own personal preference. If you want to rewrite WP:NMUSIC, this is not the venue to do it. As it stands, this article meets the notability requirements. I have already provided a secondary source which you have refused to accept as valid, and I will continue looking for more sources (which is extraordinarily difficult for me because I'm not fluent in Japanese) (Update: I've found another source and more information about the first source that may be relevant, and have mentioned it below my initial comment), but the article, even as it exists now, does not qualify for deletion.

And I don't know who or what you are referring to in regards to this other AfD, but I vehemently resent the implication behind that comment. First you baselessly accused me of paid editing, now you're baselessly accusing me of socking? Keep your aspersions to yourself. Mlb96 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, based off WP:NMUSIC #2 (the album charting at #3), and #12 (Featured artist on NHK Music Line), but only week keep cause the coverage outside of NMUSIC is fairly weak. Though, the minor controversy Mlb noted also helps, outlets don't generally cover random internet drama unless you're notable. As an aside, there is no policy/guideline that requires secondary sources for WP:BLP, only for content that could be challenged. I don't see any content in the article that could reasonably be challenged. Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete misreading of policy. Primary sources can't be used to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he has a #3 albumJackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2021 (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.