Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Focus


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Chad Focus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, possibly with WP:TOOSOON mixed in given they debuted in 2017. The subject has as of yet produced one single which reached #47 on a chart in the US, which is far below the threshold set by Wikipedia's criteria for notable musicians. No other claims to significance are made and a search turns up few results, indicating a WP:SIGCOV (GNG) failure. In short, a musician who debuted with one single in 2017 that has not accrued the in-depth coverage required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC (for musicians) criterion #2 as having a song chart on a national music chart. The charting song for Chad Focus is "Dance With Me" which has charted on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, that is an acceptable chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. King And God 20:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, but I remain of the mindset that a single (and relatively recent at that) album is not in itself an indication of notability. Note that NMUSIC posits that musicians may be notable if they fulfill the criteria of the guidline. And what of the seeming failure of WP:GNG?--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N states "a topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. In this case, it has passed the subject-specific guideline and thus, merits an article without needing to pass WP:GNG as the guideline asserts that. King And God 04:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep for now: The song Dance with Me hit the chart (week of 04-07-2018) at #47 (top 100) and climbed to #36 (week of 04-14-2018) in one week. I am NOT a fan of recentism or breaking news as we shouldn't rush to create articles ---but--- then we shouldn't rush to delete them either. I also think that any exclusion to GNG cannot over-ride the criteria and mandate concerning a WP:BLP so care should be used when a person is involve. This becomes Wikipedia problematic when an article is actually a pseudo biagraphy. In this case we have a VERY poorly written "wanna-a-be" biagraphy of a newer artist than can be fixed by edits. Notability can be established by the chart records and the Dance with Me video but the there would be concerns of violating WP:BIO1E. The artist also has the video RapXclusive (video): Get to the Money by Chad Focus and there is a Chad Focus bio (Hiphoprapscene). I think there is enough sourcing to present notability even though it really was WP:TOOSOON to create the article. The options now would be to leave as an article, userfy, or place in a draft. I would classify this a a "too soon" but let's "wait a while and see", since it is here, and I think wait and see is justified. Otr500 (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Per . If we give up on our subject-specific notability guidelines we're all lost.  Many important subjects aren't necessarily covered in mainstream RS but nevertheless are encyclopedic. Musicians whose songs chart are just one example out of many. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NMUSIC. Septrillion (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2018 (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.