Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fable


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After several relists, consensus has tended towards deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Dan Fable

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm not sure this passes NSINGER as written, and I can't turn up any new sources to push this over the edge – Fstoppers is the only secondary decently-reliable source with some amount of SIGCOV, but most of the meat of this article is sourced to interviews, most not in RSes. Yes, Fable has been involved with two charting singles, but "featured artist" and "co-writer" mean he's not really the primary artist credited with the charting – I don't think that guarantees notability against a fail of GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. I do note that the Official Charts Company credits Venbee and Fable as equals, so I've amended the article to that effect.-- Laun chba ller 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * okay, here's my question on this: how come WP:NSONG says that charting on a national chart makes the song maybe notable, but it automatically confers notability to the ~artist? even WP:MUSICBIO says those criteria don't automatically grant notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO states that subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may".  dxneo  (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: dxneo and siroxo's contributions require further exploration to assess which is the more persuasive in this situation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Cited sources are mostly passing mentions just like here and here, although they are credited as a primary artist on a charting song, there's no SIGCOV and a WP:BLP cannot be based on a charting song. I see here that the subject was/is signed to UMG and they would pass #5 per WP:MUSICBIO if they released at least two albums under the label but unfortunately they don't even have one. here is another two paragraph source about the subject releasing a new song. I think it's TOOSOON, maybe if they have a certified record or have been nominated for award(s) then yes they would definitely have an argument but I couldn't find any of that. Again WP:MUSICBIO states that the subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... emphasizing "may", subject never headlined any RS news, I don't think that "may" applies here.  dxneo  (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep based on his 2 charting tracks, which meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria.Royal88888 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , "two" charting tracks? Which and which? Care to provide sources please?  dxneo  (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted my vote in good faith based on the content of the article. Read it and you will see his chart rankings mentioned. I have not verified the sources, but they are posted in the article if you read it. Royal88888 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , we have all read the article that's why it is here now. The second song on the lead statement is NOT his song, next time please do a research before voting, or at least leave a "comment" instead of "keep" or "delete".  dxneo  (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dxneo I stick with my vote. I re-read it. Co-writing a song and having credits is just as good for meeting WP:MUSICBIO terms, as there is nothing in guidelines suggesting otherwise. The guidelines apply to musicians also, not just artists. Royal88888 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: an IP closed as keep. It seemed suspicious, so I reverted it, but if consensus is that it's valid, i'm happy to let it stand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. On one of the singles ("Low Down"), the subject is indeed a performer, meeting even a tight reading of the SNG. Criterion 2, met here, is straightforward and held at the same level as criterian 1, which is effectively a phrasing of GNG targeted toward musical acts. As always, we'd need some clear evidence that we're unable to write an encyclopedia article on the subject to override the presumption of notability that a notability guideline provides. Reviewing the sources in the article, there's enough verifiable information to summarize to create a start class or better article, so I see no reason not to use the guideline. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

– robertsky (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. Any response to source analysis? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Source analysis indicates that the notability of the subject is at best borderline. I am unable to find a truly secondary source that's independent, reliable and of significant coverage, except for the fstoppers piece. Many of the sources here are primary sources (be it interviews or song listings).
 * WithGuitars purports to have a team of writers including "a few former national editors of indie, alternative, and rock magazine titles" and John Robb.-- Laun chba ller 01:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why I didn't mark the site down for reliability. The issue of this piece of article is that though it is long, the only fact there that's cited for is in the first sentence that's also the first paragraph. The second paragraph is a mainly a quote from the subject, either from an interview or from a press material. The third is about the singer, but in the context of the release of the EP, feels promotional. Hence the ? from me. – robertsky (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the source analysis. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The source analysis still stands; GNG is not met.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 11:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated source table, covering additions up to 3 Dec:


 * My !vote still stands. – robertsky (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.