Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X


 * 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 all. Also considered the consensus in the formerly seperated AfDs. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Allie X

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable singer that fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST AND WP:N WordSeventeen (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. She (1) "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." See references 1,2, and 3 for a start.  (2) She has had a single on Canada's hot 100.  She meets two of the criteria for musicians, and only one is required. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep You are not acting in accordance to wikipedia policy. I tried to act in good faith now, but you very clearly are either not reading the article or you can't follow guidelines. On primary sources, this is what the guidelines say "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." I have not interpreted primary source material. Another thing, the articles you removed like Vice are so far from a self published blog with no editorial oversight it's very clear you didn't even bother to learn about the institution. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_(magazine) I also cannot even fathom what kind of issue you had with a archived, broadcast radio interview. WP:MUSICBIO WP:MUS WP:PRIMARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and these sources and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... – Davey 2010 Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This reference #1 goes to an archive.org site with an error message "Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ in /home/stickyma/domains/stickymagazine.com".  This reference #2  is a brief mention not significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. This reference #3  is also just a brief mention, not significant coverage, also fails WP:GNG. So two are trivial brief mentions and the third goes to an error page sort of like a dead link. Not sure what the problem is there with archive.org and stickymag.   The VICE reference a user refers to above goes to a blog type site with no editorial oversight. They contract out to freelancers for their content and have no editorial oversight.  NOT WP:RS) Cheers!     WordSeventeen (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Billboard article is a "brief mention"?!?!?! It's 1,083 words, and she is the subject of the article! It's not like she is briefly mentioned in passing in an article about someone else, the article is 3 pages of text about her!  That's really a decent length feature article for a magazine.  As for the Time article; yes, it's a lot shorter at just 2 paragraphs and 148 words, but it's still a non-trivial mention for a major newsmagazine like Time to review a single.~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Archive.org error fixed. Also, it doesn't matter if it failed WP:GNG because the GNG specifically states "or or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." These guidelines are ones people continuously have told you, known as the WP:MUS and WP:MUSBIO which is most certainly does not fail.SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MUSBIO. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Allie X (meets WP:MUSICBIO), merge the other two. Too soon for separate articles; if we had separate articles for every song which ever charted, we'd have no room for anything else. WP:GNG overrides subject-specific guidelines, which are intended to be used with common sense, and there's a lot of source overlap in these articles.  Mini  apolis  22:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: the "we'd have no room for anything else" argument, may I remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have since bundled all three related AfDs, and I !vote keep for all three. They each respectively pass WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS due to charting.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Keep Catch (Allie X song), per my keep vote at Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song). Keep CollXtion I, per the non-trivial sources in that article, including reviews from Exclaim! and Edmonton Journal, as well the sources talking about the songs from the album. Keep Allie X, per WP:MUSICBIO, as others have been pointing out. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Keep: Substantial references in mainstream music media including Time and major article in Billboard. If a 1000+ word profile in Billboard doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia, I'm not sure what does. Goyston talk, contribs 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Note that despite it being closed procedurally per being bundled here, up to the time it was closed, Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) had an overall consensus for article retention. Articles for deletion/CollXtion I did not receive as much input. It's important for these discussions to also be taken into consideration at the time this newly-bundled discussion is closed. See below for reference. North America1000 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all - Allie X, her album, and single have received significant coverage in reliable sources and thus are notable. (Note that the album come out next week, so much of the coverage [e.g. professional reviews] is within the last week.)  These nominations seem to have been a huge waste of time as notability is not remotely borderline.  Given the desire to discount even a 1000 word Billboard article, this is eitehr an epic misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines or a bad faith nomination.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:NMUSIC #2 by having a verifiable hit on a national music chart. The article could do with a serious copyedit, but deletion is not the answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Snow keep♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.