Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candyland (musician)


 * 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 delete. Ignoring the promotional socks, there seems to be consensus that this is barely notable at best. Given the extensive reference bombing, I am applying WP:TNT. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article. Randykitty (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Candyland (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources cited are a hodge-podge of Facebook and YouTube sites, as well as numerous primary sources. The subject of this article has received minor, two paragraph-long mention in non-notable secondary sources such as music blogs and websites. Of their productions that have charted, none of the charts are recognized by Wikipedia, per WP:BADCHARTS. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Infopage100 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the article should be kept because the only Youtube links cited as references are for the remixes done by the artist, Candyland. Everything else on the page is well sourced, which is why the page has 125 references. Yeah, 125. And the facebook links used for references are few. Out of those 125 links, only nine of them presumably can be accredited to Facebook. The rest of the references are merely websites; where I must note: "just because it's not USA Today or Billboard, doesn't mean it's not a decent website. And there are NO music blogs used on the page. There are websites listed, for which promote music, similiar to Billboard. But there are no blogs used at all. I will admit at least five and probably only five websites do have "two-paragraph" long mentions endorsing this page. But really this page should not be deleted because the majority of its sources are notable. And whatever reference issues are present can easily be fixed.


 * - Please take a moment to read Canvassing. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess requesting votes is kind of cheating. Even if it wasn't a Wikipedia rule, it would still be pretty bad. But it is, so I get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infopage100 (talk • contribs)
 * @Infopage100, It's good that recognize and tried to clean up the innocent mistake. I don't mean to blame you for trying to clean it up, but you accidentally made it worse. I just want to explain the mistake and fix it, without blame. The 4th criteria for appropriate invitations is transparency. Removing your "retracted" pings from the page makes it harder for the discussion-closer to know who got a ping to come here. For transparency: TheMagnificentist, Jax 0677, XPanettaa, and I, were pinged. Problem solved. We're good. Alsee (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have added a chart which makes the article to qualify for WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Really good article, Infopage100., please revoke your nomination for deletion as I've added a source to prove its notability. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep or redirect - While I do not intend to go through the dozens of citations in the article, I think that we need something besides Facebook as references. That being said, I recommend keeping or redirecting the page to Speechless (Candyland song). --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Speechless (Candyland song), the notable thing she's actually done - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unnecessary. The article is quite well-written and there are sources backing its notability, as well as a charted single in the US, automatically negates deletion according to the policies in Wikipedia. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I do not disagree with you. That being said, Speechless (Candyland song) can also be merged into Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: - This page received its nomination for deletion because there was not enough references to back up its notability. It was also eligible for its removal on Wikipedia, simply because the references provided represented the information poorly. But this nonsense has been resolved, as I have added a gargantuan of new references to the page. I'm not completely finished yet, so I will keep editing later on, if necessary. Infopage100 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Infopage100, Your "gargantuan of new references" is more a plethora of junk links to personal blogs and online music vendors. I would urge you to take a moment to read Verifiability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -, I didn't understand anything you said. All I know is to not ask for votes again, so I won't. Sorry.
 * Delete. One minor appearance on a minor chart. very weak claim to notability. Compare that to the over the top promotion, the excessive refspamming, the undue weight given to almost everything, the fan cruft, the lack of any real coverage WP:GNG. Give it some TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Infopage100 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just decided to revisit this discussion to assure people that the article should be kept because it's a good article. And the artist has technically officially charted on an official chart. So.... I don't think this page should go.
 *  Reply - Can't vote twice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - number 46 on the Billboard dance chart is a very small claim to notability, especially when there seems to be extremely little notable coverage otherwise, but is does meet the conditions set out by NMUSIC so should probably stay. It will, however, need a lot of work to strip it down to remove all the un-notable information supported by press release song announcements or facebook posts only.  Nik the  stunned  10:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is worth noting that both User:TheMagnificentist and User:Infopage100 are indefinitely blocked. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2016 (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.