Talk:Jasmine (American singer)

Why the rewrite?
Can I ask why this article was completely rewritten and why certain information such as the "IShine" section and a link to The Next Me (Jasmine album) are missing? --Djc wi (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Article reverted
This article has undergone a major revert. All unreferenced information has been removed. All discography links have been restored (The Next Me is an album, not an EP!). Major contributors have been warned about disruption. If you disagree with the revert, please discuss here instead of starting an edit war. I would be more than happy to discuss additions to the article, etc. --Djc wi (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why did you say "you finally use the talk page"? Regardless, please stop Deleting accurate Deletions.  Information that should be added: Jasmine as an artist now goes by Jasmine Sagginario.  Please do not delete this, or be willing to come to a consensus on how to word this in your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminepedia (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 April 2011
 * Please sign your comments. I've seen you do it, so you obviously know how.  In order for this information to be added, it needs a valid reference.  Possibly a website that says, "Jasmine goes by Jasmine Sagginario now."  If you go on the web, and find that reference, I'll change the article to reflect that.  --Djc wi (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should include her last name as an artist as does Walt Disney Records and pretty much EVERY PRESS release does. Look on her website, and her wallpaper shows her last name.  Her youtube videos show her last name.  CD's in Walmart and Target all have her last name.  Below are just a few references, as SEVERAL more can be researched.  An article that says She has now changed her name is irrelevant because she never changed it to begin with. --Jasminepedia (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Crazy_(song)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GGSpDhfuZM
 * http://www.prlog.org/10804646-radio-disneys-nbt-winner-jasmine-sagginario-to-perform-at-educational-expo.html
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstruck_(2010_film)
 * Her website's wallpaper does not say Sagginario. It says Jasmine.  The articles mention no references regarding her name.  And the website looks like a blog.  Sorry, that's not enough.  If Jasmine's website wallpaper changes to Jasmine Sagginario, that'll do it.  In the meantime, stop editing the article unless you have something constructive to offer.  --Djc wi (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Her websites wallpaper does say Jasmine Sagginario...and why is her website www.jasminesagginario.com? Download her wallpaper, and you will see you are wrong.  It says Jasmine Sagginario.  In the meantime, stop deleting the accurate edits.  And where did you get your facts that she goes only by Jasmine?  Please show articles stating the her Artist name is only "Jasmine", and that she only goes by her first name. --Jasminepedia (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Go to her website. Look at the very top, right next to her face.  JASMINE!!  And I did not say she only goes by Jasmine.  I wrote the article, and I said "Jasmine Sagginario, or simply Jasmine."  That implies that both names have been used.  Don't lie on the Internet.  That could be regarded as libel, which is illegal.  --Djc wi (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC) And her website is JasmineSagginario.com because Jasmine.com and JasmineMusic.com are taken.  --Djc wi (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SURNAME says: "For people well-known by one-word names, nicknames or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally (e.g. musician/actors Beyoncé Knowles, André Benjamin, Jennifer Lopez; doctor/broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky), use the legal surname." If she is regurlarly referred to in the press as "Jasmine Sagginario" (as she is here, a cited source in the article), the quoted sentence applies and the article should in fact be moved to Jasmine Sagginario (which unfortunately will involve a Requested Move). The current opening of the article, "Jasmine Sagginario, also known as Jasmine", suggest the same. Similarly at Naming conventions (people), it says: "[…] don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there." Following guidelines and precedents, the article should be moved to Jasmine Sagginario and the subject should be referred to in the article by her surname. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You would think that WP:SURNAME applies in this situation, but this is not the case. The subject arrived on the scene participating in a television network talent contest, in which she competed using only her given name. Since that time, she has only used her given name in a professional capacity. The subject's label and publisher includes only the given name on their roster and releases recordings as such. It is clear that the use of the surname in the article is a contentious and challenged issue. Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Attribution through reliable sources has not been provided that states that the subject has chosen to forego using only her given name in a professional capacity. The source provided above is not a reliable one. In accordance with BLP policy, "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Oprah Winfrey uses both her given name and surname, in addition to only using her given name in a professional capacity. Jasmine only uses her given name in a professional capacity. At the end of the day, if the article chooses to ignore all rules, we cannot forego the BLP policy, which requires attribution for challenged content. My recommendation is to edit the lede to state the following,
 * Jasmine Sagginario (born September 1, 1994), known professionally as Jasmine, is an American pop musician.
 * Subsequent mentions of the subject should simply use the given name. This clarifies both the legal name and professional name. If an editor wishes to indicate that the subject has chosen to forego use of the single given name, this addition would either require attribution or removal, in accordance with policy. Regards,  Cind. amuse  16:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article itself makes no attempt to present any material on her preferred name. I picked the source you characterise as unreliable from the article.
 * As an outsider who has never heard of her before – I came here because of this invitation in three related projects, the primary evidence seems to me that she presents herself frequently as J. Sagginario: the video player at her website is titled that way, as is the copyright notice at the bottom of that page, as are her Twitter and facebook accounts. So, without any compelling evidence to suggest that she is not known or does not want be known as J. Sagginario, I suggest the safer way to deal with the matter is to follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions instead of using an uncertain mononym. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion?
No further arguments regarding the singer's name have been presented during the last week. As I wrote above, I can't find any compelling evidence in the article itself or in the her self-representation that would warrant a mononym. I suggest to list this article at Requested moves to be moved to Jasmine Sagginario. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No consensus has been reached. Nothing should happen until one is reached.  --Djc wi (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DoB in lead
In, editor Djc wi removed the DoB – month, day, year – from the opening sentence. I the year of birth, citing what I consider relevant guidelines in the edit summary. Editor Cindamuse the full date of birth, based on a different reading of the guidelines. Note that I did not remove any part of the DoB, I added the year.

My reasoning for my edit (and yes, I did read the quoted guidelines, and more, before I made that change) is as follows:

WP:OPENPARA says: "… exact birth and death dates are certainly important to the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body and in infobox, the vital year range can be sufficient to provide context in some cases." MOS:DOB says: "When only the years are known, or days and months would be irrelevant detail: 'Socrates (470–399 BC) was'..." (my emphasis), and this lengthy discussion which, in my reading, concluded that providing the full DoB in the opening sentence is not mandatory. Taken all three together, it seems to me that providing the full DoB in the opening phrase is unnessary clutter when that date is given in the article itself and in an infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael, the BLP policy specifically states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." Copying your emphasis from above, MOS:DOB says: "When only the years are known, or days and months would be irrelevant detail: 'Socrates (470–399 BC) was'..." In the case of Socrates, the full dates of birth are irrelevant, while in the case of a living person, it becomes relevant. In WP:OPENPARA, all examples offered include full dates of birth. The content further indicates, "Generally the guidelines for lead sections... can be sufficient to provide context in some cases." (As noted in your comment above.) Continuing the thought in context from WP:OPENPARA, "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." As a living person, establishing notability at just 15 years of age, I maintain that according to the MOS guidelines, inclusion of the full date of birth is appropriate in the lede and relevant to the subject's notability. For this reason, and for the sake of consistency, I restored the full date of birth.  Cind. amuse  11:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting rather philosophical, and we may be talking at cross-purposes. Did you notice that a) her full DoB is given in the first sentence of the article's body and in the infobox, b) that I did not remove the year of birth but added it? I fail to see how her birthday of September 1 could possibly add to her notability. Did you read the enormous discussion I mentioned? I took from it that the lead section should be as uncluttered and to-the-point as possible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that the full DOB is added elsewhere. I noticed that the full DOB was previously added to the article, then removed entirely, then restored partially. At that point, I restored the full DOB in accordance with the guidelines. I am aware of the discussion and proposal related to this issue and participated last year. The proposal to forgo the guidelines and recommend that only the years be provided in the lede, when the birth and death dates appear elsewhere in an article did not reach consensus to override. The overwhelming response was in opposition to the proposal. The consensus was to continue including the full dates in the lede. What I find puzzling is that you recommended to include full dates as well. So honestly, I'm confused about your intentions. Did you read the consensus and summation differently?  Cind. amuse  16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having seen a few articles with only the year(s) in the opening sentence and the full DoB/DoD in the article's body and present in an infobox made me change my mind; an article's lead establishes why the article exists, and the day and month, unless significant in their own way, don't play a part. — I do have a slightly different reading of the closing remarks of that discussion: the lack of consensus to recommend "years only in the opening sentence" was matched by a lack of consensus to mandate full dates; and that was the whole basis of why I partly reverted the removal of the DoB by Djc and subsequently started this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but the guidelines remain the same. I understand and respect that you maintain a different view of the policy, (nothing wrong with that). The official assessment of the discussion stated, "There was no consensus to apply recommendation for how to present birth and death dates in the lead. No change to existing guidelines." The discussion ended with the consensus to continue using the full dates in the lede.  Cind. amuse  19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... the article meets Criterion 9 of WP:BAND. Did you even read the article? --Djc wi (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because the propsed deletion seems pointy; see User_talk:76.90.111.210 and Robert Tickell. --Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the 'speedy deletion' tag, because it is clearly invalid (there is certainly a claim to notability, at the very least).
 * (Also, Djc wi removed it, but a bot reinstated it because that user created the original article and thus should not remove the CSD tag)
 * Of course, a deletion discussion is always an option (but I am not giving any opinion in that regard). Best,  Chzz  ► 06:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, a deletion discussion is always an option (but I am not giving any opinion in that regard). Best,  Chzz  ► 06:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)