Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiwek


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiwek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. One song, "Afrobot", appears to have charted on a Dutch "bubbling under" chart, see. Most of the artists listed in the "remixes" section don't even mention Wiwek. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - As per WP:ATD, the article should be improved rather than be deleted. By searching for this topic, I have found many reliable sources to establish notability. As per WP:MUSICBIO, one charted single is all it takes to pass the criteria. WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO can be resolved with a bit of expansion of the article. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:MUSICBIO specifically states: "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Magnolia677 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Charted single and there is coverage passing WP:BASIC. --Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - If these are the best sources you can find to support keeping this article, I would suggest these sources in fact do more to support the article's deletion. WP:BASIC specifically calls for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources".  Regarding the three sources listed:
 * The first source is seven sentences of vacuous text about upcoming singles with almost no biographical content.
 * The second source contains about six sentences of biography, followed by a lengthy interview with Wiwek. Interviews are not secondary sources.
 * The third source contains four sentences of promotional text about forthcoming singles, with absolutely no biographical content. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no stipulation in WP:GNG that all coverage must be "biography", it just states "significant." The coverage can be about the person's work, personal life or whatever else.  As long as it's more than a "passing mention" of the person, it's acceptable per WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:30, 20 December 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.