Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Sloan (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus seems to be that the article can be fixed outside of AFD. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sasha Sloan

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sasha Sloan
• Articles for deletion/Sasha Sloan (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sasha Sloan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMG, with no charting singles, an empty lead and history section, and scarce mentions online.

Addressing the points brought up from the first nomination:

• I've since done a lot of work to the article making it conform to our standards.

If standards mean a six-letter lead devoid of any useful information and a large discography section comprising primary iTunes links (and Qobuz, what's that?), I'm not sure what to say.

• With the excellent work done by Michig and Davey

Define "excellent" and "work"? This is blind support for something unspecified.

• Has contributed to major label albums such as Sony and Warner Brothers

So? We have many smaller artists who have contributed to said labels, but that does not mean they deserve a Wikipage if they fail the notability criteria.

• The many sources linked on the nomination page

Linking sources which contains info isn't useful if it isn't used on the page. At the very least include those info in a separate "Career" or "History" section, which I fail to see here.

This page is not fit for mainspace viewing, seeing it lacks lots of information despite having "reliable sources". It's useless to link so many sources but not include them in the page (sticking them into discography songs doesn't count). At the very least, move it to a draft where it can be properly expanded. aNode (discuss) 06:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Nice table, but no text to speak of. Nothing in the article suggests the subject is passing notability, and I'll AGF nominator that it fails NMUSIC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: yes, the many links to iTunes and Qobuz need to go, as does the tour section (she was the support act, not the headliner, so it's not notable). But Michig showed in the first AfD that there is coverage in Billboard and other music press, an AllMusic biography, and in addition to that there are pieces in The Guardian [1], The Line of Best Fit [2] and The Boston Globe [3]. Richard3120 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case, maybe try fitting those sources into the text? Plainly pasting these sources here doesn't mean much if it's not utilised in the article properly. aNode (discuss) 16:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP!, The nom says "This page is not fit for mainspace viewing, seeing it lacks lots of information despite having "reliable sources". It's useless to link so many sources but not include them in the page (sticking them into discography songs doesn't count). At the very least, move it to a draft where it can be properly expanded"

So the obvious answer to that statement is add a history section and do the necessary work - AFDing it is simply taking the lazy route and quite honestly it goes against the whole point of this website,

As noted by Michig and myself there are plenty of sources making this easily pass GNG although I do agree the Qubuzz and Itunes should go,

I'll add a history/personal life section within the 2 weeks as well as remove the Quzbuz (the Itunes cites are fine). –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – Passes WP:BASIC pass per available sources, such as those listed above and per some of them listed in the previous AfD discussion. While "AfD is not cleanup", if the article is retained, the {{Cleanup AfD}} template could be added atop it, directing editors to the concerns presented in this discussion. Furthermore, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based upon overall available sources, not the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 29 October 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.