- Paul McDonald (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was redirected on the basis that it could only be sourced with "mentions in TV guides and gossip magazines", and that it fails WP:MUSIC due to none of McDonald's albums selling more than 10,000 copies. I understand the closing administrator, Phantomsteve's decision to redirect the article based on the discussion that took place. However, unfortunately, a few important points seem to have gone unnoticed by the voters. Firstly, the article when it was redirected, was sourced with more than just "TV guides and gossip magazines" - USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Daily News, and MTV were all being used, and all of them provided significant coverage. A very quick Google search of my own yielded results from The Huffington Post and Yahoo! Music. I have no doubt that I could find countless more professional, independent sources if I took the time. Secondly, there's nothing in WP:MUSIC saying that an artist has to sell a certain number of albums in order to be notable. In fact, an artist doesn't even have to meet every single criteria in those guidelines in order to have an article. The main thing, I believe, is that he or she meets criteria #1, which is basically the same as the general notability guidelines. As I mentioned above, McDonald meets this criteria several times over. However, he also meets criteria #2, #4, #9, #10, #12, and possibly #6. I've discussed the matter with Phantomsteve, who agreed with my reasoning and told me to open a discussion about it here. Jpcase (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closing admin - as mentioned above, the outcome of the discussion was clearly in favour of there being no stand-alone article for this musician. As such, the redirection was the logical result, as the musician's name would be a valid search term. However, had there been an argument as presented above, I would have re-listed to allow further discussion. I feel that the argument presented here by Jpcase is sufficient to warrant a discussion on whether this article should be re-instated. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Relist if the closing admin agrees that there is a new point that would bear further discussion then they should just go ahead and do that rather than feel constrained to wait for us to process wank over the close for a week and then do precisely the same thing. For the record, the AFD close was perfectly fine and redirecting is by far the most common outcome in these cases. I can't see the outcome changing but it wasn't the most well attended discussion so further discussion wouldn't hurt. . Spartaz Humbug! 08:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close but allow recreation. I would ordinarily be all for relisting but this is a discussion from January and re-opening a 4-month-old discussion just to overturn a redirect that the closer agrees should now be reconsidered seems a bit bureaucratic. There's a good-faith request to recreate the article - surely a discussion here is enough to establish WP:CONSENSUS for recreation without having to go back to AFD? Stalwart111 01:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close and relist, speedy if possible. I'm not convinced sorting through the sources there is going to be best done here, I found 3-4 USA Today references but most of them were single mentions, and one might almost reach the "signficant coverage" bar Jpcase argues. If the result of an AfD was going to be a lot more obvious, I'd supoort simple recreation, but I don't believe the article has, in the state it existed in before the redirect, an obvious and indisputable outcome. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm open to having this relisted if people feel that it would be helpful. But if it's decided that we should just have the discussion here, then I feel that significant coverage can be displayed pretty easily. In addition to this article from USA Today [1] (which I assume is the one Joe Decker is referencing), the article at the time of redirection included (among others):
- This two-page article from the Nashville Business Journal [2]
- This article from MTV [3]
- This article from OK Magazine [4]
- This article from the New York Daily News [5]
- This article from the Huntsville Times [6]
- These articles from People Magazine [7], [8], [9]
- Additionally, there are countless articles out there from McDonald's American Idol run that devote varying amounts of coverage to him. Here are just a few examples:
- All of these are from 2011, but in a odd bit of timing, McDonald has popped up in the news again just this past week, due to his divorce from Nikki Reed.
- The New York Daily News - [22]
--Jpcase (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
