Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, notability demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources and nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
J Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Simpy does not meet WP:NMG. He is not the subject of multiple non-trivial newspaper articles. He talk's about himself in some, others are largely not about him and he is only mentioned in passing as listed to be performing. No real google hits. No personal website. Is not signed by a significant record label. Does not have significant albums sales. Albums not sold in stores. Only one real link from an another article. Icamepica (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Icamepica (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have to be the subject of an article. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is not a notable musician. Very few independent sources even mention him.BWH76 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I write about hip-hop for a living and I've never heard of him. E-40's son Droop-E is far more notable and even he is a minor name in hip-hop let alone Bay Area rap. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to be notable at all Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has many reliable sources. A couple are most specifically all about him. What did he do, get somebody's sister pregnant? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's totally inappropriate to have a second AFD on an article just three days after the first was closed. He seems to have some notable qualities (there are a bunch of sources listed), but aside from that, this should be kept for its procedural problems. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems fairly obvious that the nominator of this AFD is a reincarnation of the user who nominated it last time, so I doubt this is the "good faith nomination" that I mentioned hypothetically in closing the first AFD. In light of this, and the fact that I don't see any reason to delete this, and that nothing has changed in the last three days, I would expect the same result. — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might expect it but thisd is clearly no speedy keep, and nor are allt he delete votes sock or meat puppets by any stretch of the imagination. We certainly should not keep the article because of sockpuppets. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's pretty much a snowball keep to begin with. The fact that there has been meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, and canvassing here means that this deletion discussion is fatally flawed and should not proceed. If the only issue is notability that can wait until the more serious question of sockpuppets is resolved. You were canvassed to come to this discussion. I have left a warning on your talk page regarding edit warring over the placement of sockpuppet notices. Please take a step back on this one. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously I don't pretend that my expectations carry any weight in this debate, as I have no intention of closing it again. In fact, I'm done commenting here. — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not a speedy close: Although the nominator is accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user, even if the nomination was in bad faith, since there have been some good-faith entries by established users I think this discussion should probably not be speedily closed, though I'm not entirely sure of that. While it's not precisely relevant to this situation, Wikipedia:Deletion process says "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." and in my opinion the spirit of that suggests that once there are some good-faith delete votes, the discussion should not be speedily closed. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I respect that, and it is a shame to waste everyone's time here, there are a couple problems with allowing sockpuppet-plagued processes to continue. First, any result to delete based on this discussion would be invalid (unless it's a snowball / speedy delete) because the system was gamed. The sockpuppet(s) canvassed a bunch of people, convincing them unwittingly to support them by lying about the circumstances of the article, its citations, etc. So the time is wasted anyway - not by the close but by the sockpuppetry. Second, these sockpuppets have made six nominations in five days. If the nominations fail or they get blocked again, they just come back and nominate more articles. To allow these sockpuppets to force everyone to deal with that amount of work means, basically, that they win. The only reasonable approach to dealing with them is to simply deny them any benefit they might gain by gaming the system.Wikidemo (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any lying. Please provide diffs.
Any AfD discussion might have sockpuppets in it. Probably the best way to deal with that is by using all the usual procedures for carrying on and closing these discussions.
The purpose here is not to make sure that someone does or doesn't "win", but to build an encyclopedia. I don't think it would be appropriate to close a discussion in order to achieve a particular effect on the perceived benefit to the nominator; that seems to me to go against the spirit of the policy that we don't block punitively. (WP:Blocking policy). --Coppertwig (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing about procedure. To create an encyclopedia you have to uphold the integrity of procedure. If you let anyone get what they want by subverting the procedure you don't get quality, you get a mess. Regarding lying, in the boomgaylove persona watch how the sockpuppet first adds a "citation needed" tag to a cited piece of text[1], removes two sources[2] because he "never heard of" them or something, then he removes data as "unsourced" and adds fact tags[3]. And then argued in the AfD that the article was unsourced. That's the kind of behavior that got this user blocked indefinitely if you look at the AN/I history. The newer examples are milder but either clueless or disingenous: "He is not the subject of multiple non-trivial newspaper articles", "No real google hits", "No personal website." I can't review it all for you but this kind of stuff has been going on incessantly for about a week. Probably for months under different accounts. Wikidemo (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edits you describe look like valid arguments to me, and don't seem to me to bear any resemblance to "lying" even if one might disagree with them. Elsewhere I've added fact tags when there are already sources, if the sources are inadequate or do not support the material; the citation-needed tag for the slash article seems to me to be a request for a proper bibliographic reference including date of publication etc. Rather than "lying", from what you describe above the situation seems to be simply someone who has a higher standard than you for quality of sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's ridiculous and uncalled for. I'm fighting a sockpuppet here and you say that the sock has valid arguments and a higher standard for sourcing than I do? If that weren't such a hoot I might consider it an insult. The sock's method of "argument" was enough to get him/her banned indefinitely. I already proved the case on AN/I, and if you really want to learn the details you can follow the links to that case. I don't have to prove it again and again on demand. And abusive sockpuppeting is inherently dishonest. Wikidemo (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I hereby declare that my attention was drawn to this article by a recent help desk thread started by the nominator. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...which was part of the canvassing and forum shopping problem. The nominator went all over the place trying to drum up people to oppose the content until he/she found some. As did the previous sockpuppet incarnation, boomgaylove. That's part of what makes this AfD invalid, as well as the edit warring over claims of BLP violation. Wikidemo (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote article Although I don't think it was necessary to prove the notability of the article or deal with the sockpuppets and other problems with this AfD nomination, I've substantially rewritten it and added yet more sources. As with the first batch of sources there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources - articles about this artist in various print publications. I continue to believe this was a bad faith nomination that should be summarily closed. Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, among the many blatant misstatements in the nomination are that this artist's albums are not available in stores. I guess Tower Records is out of business but they sold an album, and CD Universe?[4], Rasputin, Barnes and Noble, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The google test is not a valid argument, your confirmations are not valid, checkusers on one editor accused of sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this discussion since the rest of the voters which are majority in favor of deletion are not.Icamepica (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. And please note that the "Google-argument" is absurd in this case. Yes, you'll find tens of thousands of hits on J Stalin, true enough. Most of them are about the very notable USSR dictator, not about this guy. JdeJ (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sakes! We're up to eleven sources from six publications. Will someone close this farce already? Wikidemo (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sources and publications are those? Many are not reliable. And even if all of them where, that only establishes verifiability which is not the point of an AfD, notability is. University professors are a good example of this. They are definatly verifiable in many sources but they are not usually notable.Icamepica (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep - Does not seem to be even remotely borderline: reliable sources, material available in stores - what else could be wanted to establish notability? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just as it did three days ago, this article has adequate sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Gwernol 10:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The sources give significant information about the subject, not just listing performance dates etc., and some of the sources focus specifically on the subject for at least several paragraphs. There is quite a large number of sources listed. I looked at the Google hits and many of them are about the musician, not the Soviet politician; the majority of the first few pages of hits are about the musician. Also per Bash Kash and Ed FitsGerald, who seem to be providing personal confirmation of local notability and presence of the musician's songs in stores. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the sources are sufficiently reliable publications, and the subject doesn't seem to have any especially notable achievements. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep. Abuse of process and article is sourced. This should be closed immediately as a keep with prejudice towards any near term nomination (6 months at least). R. Baley (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, if this discussion is allowed to run for the usual length of time and reaches consensus, then there should be the usual deprecation of re-opening such a discussion after a short time; but if the discussion is closed early due to abuse of process, then there should be no prejudice against any future good-faith AfD nominations of this article even if they're after a very short time. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This was a ludicrous nomination on the face of it, and with all the sources now included (even with SqueakBox and Coppertwig siding with a sockpuppet to remove some sources), this is a no-brainer keep. Why was this even nominated, given the result of only a few days ago? Bellwether BC 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: I have not advocated removing any sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note ongoing content dispute citing BLP. Some editors (including myself) consider a certain statement to be potentially libellous, poorly sourced and irrelevant to the reason for having an article on this subject, and have removed it. One editor considers the statement to be adequately sourced and has re-inserted it several times. There is discussion of this dispute on the talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a misstatement on several points. It's not a legitimate dispute, there is no potential libel, the "poor" source is a newspaper, calling it "some editors" versus one is inaccurate and a bit backward, and the only thing it has to do with this AfD is that it was promoted by the sockpuppets behind the AfD.Wikidemo (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So only reports in national news sources count now? seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how you define notable, is being a local talent notable enough? Not to me. All factors considered this ones does not seem to rise above the crowd. Yet. Why the rush? David D. (Talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*chuckles to himself* Usually we have people asking why the rush to delete, not to keep an article. But anyway, I agree with what Gwenol says below; the newpaper articles are newspaper articles, regardless of size of audience. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the rush to write the article in the first place? David D. (Talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately we don't have to wonder, since our guidelines on musical groups defines what notability means in this case. The specific criterion is "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries" (my emphasis). The cited articles clearly meet this criteria. Gwernol 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I read seemed pretty trivial to me, I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. David D. (Talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the point of even having notability guidelines, if people are going to cite them in useless, talismanic fashion? There are sources in the article which discuss the subject extensively. The sources include major newspapers. (The SF Bay Guardian is a free alternative weekly, but it is as comparable to most other alternative weeklies as The New York Times is to the TriCounty Gazette-Herald.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is the subject of secondary reliable sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Bad faith nomination riddled with sock-puppetry and WP:CANVASSING.--Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J_Stalin_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1263969688"