Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manic Dream Pixie


 * 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 redirect to Peach PRC. Clear consensus against a standalone at this point; and if someone is interested in creating a draftspace copy, the history remains for them to do so. However, this should not be recreated without substantially better sourcing than is currently available. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Manic Dream Pixie

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

Another contested redirect. Please see the article's talk page where the editor who contested the redirect admits there is not enough in-depth sourcing to warrant an article. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep What?! I did not say there wasn't enough sourcing - I said that everything in the article was sourced. This is genuinely ridiculous. Also another source was just added to the article - there is no reason why the article isn't considered notable, when NME is a severely notable and reputable news source in the U.K. when it comes to media and entertainment. Additionally, it wasn't contested - you reinstated the redirect without having a formal discussion about it first, which is again not how you handle these things. I severely diagree with the mere creation of this AfD. And another thing: the EP literally releases in 3 weeks. There will be more media coverage of the EP then. Therefore I say keep, because the artist in question is notable enough, and the EP will more than likely garner a lot of media attention when it fully releases. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music,  and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably TOOSOON, but it's all press releases at this point, nothing in RS. I'm even wondering if the singer is notable, her article appears to be largely social media posts used for sourcing. I'll have a look at her article soon enough, will probably get an AfD deletion discussion notice as well. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * She's got coverage in Rolling Stone and Billboard, weakly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the singer is notable - she has millions of listeners across apple music and spotify, and over 2 million on TikTok. Obviously she isn't no Taylor Swift, but she does have a listener base. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Listeners on streaming sites can be bought, aren't an indication of notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * is there valid evidence of this though? because i've never ever seen spotify have artifical listener gains. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, google streaming farms. We don't accept their numbers here as they aren't audited like newspaper circulation numbers are. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * She has had a top 40 and gold-certified song in Australia ("Josh"), multiple other chart entries in both Australia and New Zealand, as well as radio play on Triple J (and has featured in the Triple J Hottest 100), as well as received fairly wide coverage in Australian music media. There is no way her article would be deleted after having all of that. Fine, her EP may not warrant an article yet, but she is definitely notable.  Ss  112   03:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. No need to repeat it. Oaktree b (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that isn't what you said at all? You only mentioned Rolling Stone and Billboard, not about any of Peach's media coverage in any Australia journalism or her top 40 / gold certified song. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, we don't need to discuss it further. I've ~voted below. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Draftify I feel it's TOOSOON as well. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify and redirect as TOOSOON but promising. As is, the coverage here is close but not quite enough, especially for a prerelease article. Let the article get built up however much it can in draftspace and get judged after its released when hopefully enough coverage is available. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 04:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have opted to move the article to draftspace - its the best option instead of having the article be deleted. This isn't routine AfD protocol, but i can already assume that people will vote for draftify or delete. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify and redirect this article is TOOSOON but I do believe that in a few months it'll be fine.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's against policy to move articles to draft while still at AfD. I've moved it back.  Onel 5969  TT me 09:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Evelyn Marie should we take this as a vote from you to draftify as well? And @Oaktree b @XtraJovial would either of you be interested in changing you votes? QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 13:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - after thinking a bit I think draftification would be more appropriate than outright deletion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I vote to draftify. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect. No point in moving to draft, just redirect it until/if it gets coverage and/or charts after its release.  Ss  112   06:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect either until it gets better coverage or is released. "Should be notable" isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.