Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Buddha


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Lil Buddha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was deleted under Sacar Adhikari and Draft:Lil Buddha was declined by myself and. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not address or try to address musical notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable Devokewater @  09:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Just in a simple WP:BEFORE I managed to find   some decent English-language coverage suggesting that he is notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how these two passing mentions and one interview (primary source) support notability? Thank you, GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 10:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (Not commenting on anything else) The Kathmandu Tribune is an absolute garbage whose appearance is designed to give it the credibility its content does not, and has past associations with UPE and PROMO. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * speedsy close AfD and Return to draft. I strongly object to this entire procedure. I moved this to draft yesterday, as an alternative to deleting it under A7, although there seems to be some items missing from the log. removed the AfC template, and I think moved it back to mainspace, with the note ., who had moved this to draft earlier that same day, nominated this for deletion less than an hour later. My understanding is that moving a page from draft to mainspace, with the intent of deleting it under mainspace rules, is specifically against consensus. WP:DRAFTS says:  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Draftification is one experienced editor exercising a limited mandate; any draftification can be contested and after that only AFD can resolve the difference of opinion. "Draftify" is a perfectly valid outcome for any AFD. I don't think Primefac was personally contesting the draftification. I can see that draftification was contested multiple times before yesterday. In any case, when a draftification is reverted, the normal procedure is to take it to AFD rather than engage in a draftification war. Experienced editors can not and should not be able to become one-man gatekeepers of the mainspace, that's the job for AFD. Repeatedly draftifying the article violates at least two principles, one that the whole "Draft:" space and AFC is optional, and two, draftification should not be used as a backdoor to deletion. "Drafts are meant to be works in progress, and most will not meet Wikipedia's standards for quality at first." is a bit meant to provide a relative security to works in progress in the draftspace, not to move the articles in mainspace to bypass deletion over objection from editors who have decided their work is ready for mainspace. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, while I love the ability of Special:MergeHistory to make my life easier, it is an absolute POS when it comes to logs. As you say, the page was moved to the draft space, but then the creator copy/pasted it back into the article space, so I did a histmerge from Draft to Article. As mentioned above, when someone is dead-set on having an article and does things like that it's better to go through AFD and formally delete it or determine if it's reliable. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I missed the copy&paste "move" and the history merge. That explains the gaps in the logs -- that feature really should create a log entry of its own, at least. Since it appears that the article creator chose to return this to mainspace against at least my advice, and I think that of others, there was not a move to mainspece in order to use mainspece deletion rules. I still think this would be better off in draft, to allow time to establish no0tability if that ism possible, but no one editor has the power to force a page to stay in draft, and I wasn't claiming such a power. I think we maybe need a more developed consensus on when and how things should be moved in and out of draft. There has been so9me discussion of this on WT:CSD recently, but no consensus seems to have developed there.  Anyway this article clearly hasn't demonstrated notability at this moment. I would still favor a move to draft, but if that doesn't have consensus, and if no better sources are found, this should be deleted.
 * I apologize to and  for suggesting that they were acting improperly -- I should have asked them what they had in mi8nd and why first. I have struck my call to close this AfD above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't meaning to imply that someone was playing gatekeeper, only that repeated redraftification would amount to it, despite honourable intentions. But, the histmerge explains some of the weirdness in the history, and I apologise for implying there was a persistent redraftification even, as it's now difficult to tell what was going on and who was aware of just how much history when they acted. It's a real pity when COI or PAID editors try to force entirely unready articles to mainspace over the better judgement of many experienced ones. There is no manual for how to handle it. With the current, now well on its path to become "stable", version of our paid editing guidelines contradicting the whole "Draft space is optional" motto while some users seem to be against draftification altogether (specifically remembering the one comment on Captain Eek's RFA), the best option is not always clear to even the most experienced users I'd imagine. I didn't know of 's essay or I would have just cited that. The exception now entrenched into WP:PE notwithstanding, I am quite sure the current consensus/policy support is with exactly what Robert says in that essay (it could be an information page, IMO, if it asserted its position more boldly, citing the relevant PAGS, discussions and practices, and did not end abruptly in a comma). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Usedtobecool - Thanks. Typo fixed.  It was written during a period when there were several move wars, because the reviewers thought that AFD was not an appropriate resolution because deletion was not their objective.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was a little puzzled by the way that it seems that the draft and the article were histmerged. I agree that taking this to AFD is what I recommend in my essay on Repeated Draftification.  There may be unusual situations in which an article may reasonably be draftified twice, but normally a second draftification is just move-warring.  I don't entirely understand why some experienced editors think that AFD is so bad that move-warring is a less disruptive alternative.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, since subject lacks independent notability. The needed sources are simply not there. Wikipedia is not a collection of haphazardly thrown together, random information. Let's gracefully wish that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment : Agree that its a bit WP:TOOSOON. I added some independent references which should qualify it for a keep. Not intersted in modifying to improve the article though. nirmal (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All of them are passing mentions, and not sufficient for notability. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:20, 26 July 2020 (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.