Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The APX

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete currently. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The APX


Topic previously deleted at Articles for deletion/The APX but only two people involved in decision. This page is now one of the longest unreviewed pages at AfC - no one seems to know what to do with it. We could follow the AfD result or perhaps someone has a reason this group passes WP:NMUSIC Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - We already decided whether it met any of the musical notability criteria. That is what a deletion discussion does.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article was created by now blocked undisclosed paid editor in a violation of terms of use and then it was moved out of draftspace by yet another paid editor Jjanhone. A Google News search yields only 8 hits and I'm not seeing anything that supports either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Too soon at best. GSS (talk |c|em ) 03:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For future reference, as far as I'm aware the correct action in cases like this is to mark the draft as under review to pull it out of the queue and then open a WP:DRV discussion to gather consensus to overturn the AfD. However, given how problematic this particular draft is, I'm going to have to say delete. Nathan2055talk - contribs 07:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi there! Nice that you opened this discussion! I think an article should be evaluated by its content/subject and not by its creators. The person who created this article in the first place was a new editor and did not know the Wikipedia rules and did not act fast enough and was then blocked indefinitely(!). The group asked help from me and I gave a try. I've edited mostly in the Finnish Wikipedia where we do not have AfC process in use so that was new for me. I am also new in editing music articles but I read the "Wikipedia:Notability (music)" rules to see if this group is notable or not. They say:
 * "Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.
 * C1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself
 * C4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.}}
 * C10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album...
 * Criteria for composers and lyricists:
 * C3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria"
 * The article was deleted 1.5 years ago: "The result was delete. Undisclosed paid editing. NeilN 19:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)"
 * I know it says "may" be notable if it meets one but is it notable if it meets *four* of the criteria? Let's go through them now:
 * C1. I went through all the sources used in the article and removed those sources that had not been in Wikipedia before or had been used only a few times. The sources I kept are non-trivial, not self-published:
 * jamsphere.com 16th Aug 2017
 * sevendaysvt.com May 2018
 * voyageatl.com Sep 2018
 * huffingtonpost.com Dec 2017
 * & 12. broadwayworld.com 24th April 2017, Aug 2018
 * tunefind.com Sep 2018
 * discogs.com May 2017
 * soulbounce.com July 2017
 * creativeloafing.com July 2017
 * soulbounce.com Feb 2018
 * earmilk.com Aug 2018
 * soundcloud.com Sep 2018
 * -> Only one of these sources existed when the article was deleted for the first time.


 * C4. broadwayworld.com told "On August 15th 2018, The APX announced their first international tour outside of the United States. During the tour they are visiting e.g. Canada, Italy, Spain and Germany."
 * C10. The band's single was featured on the soundtrack of Netflix film Nappily Ever After
 * (The single was released after the first deletion, on April 28th, 2017)
 * C3. Their music has been reused by Pnau May 2017 and Dave_Lee_(DJ) Sep 2018 which are both considered notable as they have their own articles.


 * So after these points I do hope this article can stay there. When their international tour is starting in Europe in the end of this month there should come more reliable sources for this article too.Jjanhone (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are two issues here, the content and the contributor. The content has already been discussed and disposed of at Articles for Deletion, but User:Jjanhone makes a case for new sources, and also says that there is an upcoming European tour.  The contributors are primarily undisclosed paid editors.    The key question is whether this draft has been tainted by the undisclosed paid editors to where it needs to be blown up and started over, or whether the draft can be allowed to incubate until the European tour provides additional notability.  That seems to be the controlling question.  Is this draft tainted, so that User:Jjanhone or some other neutral editor should start over, or can a neutral editor fix it?  At this point I am striking out my previous !vote, and will cast a new !vote during the seven-day period.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for commenting Robert! See here the changes we've made to the article since the undisclosed paid editor started it . As I've told I am also a paid editor so I guess that makes me also non-neutral? Otherwise I could try the TNT stuff you mentioned to clean the history of the article. So what I'd love to do now is to ask comments e.g. from these Wikipedians . Do you know some from the list who could be asked or can I ask myself on their talk pages without being accused of breaking some deletion process rules? PS. BTW there was a photo of the group in the article but that has now been removed from the Commons even if it was uploaded there by the photographer herself. Jjanhone (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will wait three or four more days to see if a neutral editor is ready to start it over. A declared paid editor is not a neutral editor.  If no neutral editor appears, I will !vote Delete, and the article can be started over after the European tour.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The decline rationale includes "WP:TOOSOON".  WP:TOOSOON is the strongest of all reasons for a topic to be in draftspace.  No valid reasons for deletion have been given.  The author appears to be trying to disclose sufficiently, although I recommend more specifics in the disclosure.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks SmokeyJoe! But I have no idea how to add more "specifics" in the disclosure? I've added the table on the talk page and told about my clients on my own page, what else can I do? Jjanhone (talk) 10:33, 14 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.