Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allie X: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:15, 30 January 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:11, 19 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
Line 30:		Line 30:
	*''''Keep''': Substantial references in mainstream music media including Time and major article in Billboard. If a 1000+ word profile in Billboard doesn't make you notable enough for Misplaced Pages, I'm not sure what does. ] <small>], ]</small> 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)		*''''Keep''': Substantial references in mainstream music media including Time and major article in Billboard. If a 1000+ word profile in Billboard doesn't make you notable enough for Misplaced Pages, I'm not sure what does. ] <small>], ]</small> 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' – Note that despite it being closed procedurally per being bundled here, up to the time it was closed, ] had an overall consensus for article retention. ] did not receive as much input. It's important for these discussions to also be taken into consideration at the time this newly-bundled discussion is closed. See below for reference. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)		*'''Comment''' – Note that despite it being closed procedurally per being bundled here, up to the time it was closed, ] had an overall consensus for article retention. ] did not receive as much input. It's important for these discussions to also be taken into consideration at the time this newly-bundled discussion is closed. See below for reference. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
	{{collapsetop\|title=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)}}		{{collapsetop\|title=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)}}

Latest revision as of 02:11, 19 March 2022

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 all. Also considered the consensus in the formerly seperated AfDs. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience 00:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Allie X

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

Non-notable singer that fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST AND WP:N WordSeventeen (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep Satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. She (1) "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." See references 1,2, and 3 for a start. (2) She has had a single on Canada's hot 100. She meets two of the criteria for musicians, and only one is required. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep You are not acting in accordance to wikipedia policy. I tried to act in good faith now, but you very clearly are either not reading the article or you can't follow guidelines. On primary sources, this is what the guidelines say "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." I have not interpreted primary source material. Another thing, the articles you removed like Vice are so far from a self published blog with no editorial oversight it's very clear you didn't even bother to learn about the institution. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/Vice_(magazine) I also cannot even fathom what kind of issue you had with a archived, broadcast radio interview. WP:MUSICBIO WP:MUS WP:PRIMARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per above and these sources and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment This reference #1 goes to an archive.org site with an error message "Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ in /home/stickyma/domains/stickymagazine.com". This reference #2 is a brief mention not significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. This reference #3 is also just a brief mention, not significant coverage, also fails WP:GNG. So two are trivial brief mentions and the third goes to an error page sort of like a dead link. Not sure what the problem is there with archive.org and stickymag. The VICE reference a user refers to above goes to a blog type site with no editorial oversight. They contract out to freelancers for their content and have no editorial oversight. NOT WP:RS) Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Billboard article is a "brief mention"?!?!?! It's 1,083 words, and she is the subject of the article! It's not like she is briefly mentioned in passing in an article about someone else, the article is 3 pages of text about her! That's really a decent length feature article for a magazine. As for the Time article; yes, it's a lot shorter at just 2 paragraphs and 148 words, but it's still a non-trivial mention for a major newsmagazine like Time to review a single.~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment @WordSeventeen: Archive.org error fixed. Also, it doesn't matter if it failed WP:GNG because the GNG specifically states "or or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." These guidelines are ones people continuously have told you, known as the WP:MUS and WP:MUSBIO which is most certainly does not fail.SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per WP:MUSBIO. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep Allie X (meets WP:MUSICBIO), merge the other two. Too soon for separate articles; if we had separate articles for every song which ever charted, we'd have no room for anything else. WP:GNG overrides subject-specific guidelines, which are intended to be used with common sense, and there's a lot of source overlap in these articles. Miniapolis 22:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: the "we'd have no room for anything else" argument, may I remind you that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTPAPER. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 19:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have since bundled all three related AfDs, and I !vote keep for all three. They each respectively pass WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS due to charting. Erpert 03:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep: Keep Catch (Allie X song), per my keep vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song). Keep CollXtion I, per the non-trivial sources in that article, including reviews from Exclaim! and Edmonton Journal, as well the sources talking about the songs from the album. Keep Allie X, per WP:MUSICBIO, as others have been pointing out. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
'Keep: Substantial references in mainstream music media including Time and major article in Billboard. If a 1000+ word profile in Billboard doesn't make you notable enough for Misplaced Pages, I'm not sure what does. Goyston talk, contribs 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment – Note that despite it being closed procedurally per being bundled here, up to the time it was closed, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) had an overall consensus for article retention. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I did not receive as much input. It's important for these discussions to also be taken into consideration at the time this newly-bundled discussion is closed. See below for reference. North America 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)
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 procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Catch (Allie X song) Catch (Allie X song) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable debut single by non-notable singer. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Keep: I really can't see why this article should be deleted or merged. There's already sources cited in the article that gives the song significant coverage, per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Keep: I have no idea how my article is not notable. Obviously large institutions like Billboard and TIME think it's notable enough to mention her and her single multiple times. Also aren't you supposed to fully explain how it violates the policies? I don't really see that you did that.SanctuaryX (talk) : 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Comment If found non-notable, should redirect to the album its on. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Comment @Sanctuary, it is not your article. Please see WP:OWN. As you mentioned above th time and billboard references are just mentions. Article subject fails to met WP:GNG. The references include mentions at the time reference and billboard reference. Also there are links as references to sales sites of itunes and amazon. Other references are youtube and sound cloud. None of these have significant coverage from WP:RS. The only one that might be considered significant is the interview at WordSeventeen (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Comment @WordSeventeen I realize I do not "own" the article, but you are supposed to identify that you have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article. Sorry you misunderstood. WP:AVOIDCOI. I fail to see in any way how it does not meet WP:GNG. It has received significant coverage from multiple sources, they come from reliable sources with integrity, the content for most of the article is based on secondary sources, and they are independent of the subject. Moving on, The Youtube/Soundcloud references are for very specific things, like release dates and labels. Not information that can be biased or obfuscated. As quoted directly from WP:RS, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." I am in no way making any such claim with those references. Also, there are two Billboard references, and some of them are not just a mention. The song has also managed to chart, which does put points in it's favor for meeting the WP:NSONGS criteria. There is another interview from Radio.com conducted by Courtney E. Smith. I've further updated the article with even more interviews cited. If you have a problem with a few minor references like the Youtube for publication date, a request for reliable citation should be made, not requesting that entire article be deleted.SanctuaryX (talk) : 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) There is no requirement that the person doing a nomination for deletion to " have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article." Please redact your personal attack, "No need to be a snob" It is inappropriate to attack the nominator. Also please comment on the content not the editors or nominator. I have no COI, in fact I have no relationship or ties to this non-notable singer or her non-notable debut single. Perhaps it is just too soon. WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Comment I don't see how you still managed to misconstrue my meaning. I had a right to identify my interest in the article and was chastised for doing so. I never, ever said you had any relation to the article. Again, I don't see how any of the information doesn't follow protocols. I suppose we will just wait and see. SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Comment I don't know if you are busy or what but please take the time to read and understand what I am saying. I only disclosed I created the article. I am in no way affiliated with the sources of any of the content or the subject. I am incredibly frustrated I did the right thing and am being reprimanded for it. Comment I have removed the objected content as it was not essential to the article; only the "mentions" remain as they are used only as direct quotations as they are reviewing the song in question. When you have time please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Keep Meets WP:NSONG. It's been ranked on the Canadian hot 100 and the article cites multiple non-trivial published sources. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Keep per above and these sources and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Merge to Allie X. Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud. Miniapolis 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Comment @Miniapolis: There's not a page for "all of her recordings." There's 3 pages for her. 3. One for her, her first major label release, and her only charting single. That's nominal. I did my best not to include anything that has little to nothing to mention. And again, there's alternatives to the WP:GNG, like the WP:MUS.SanctuaryX (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Keep. The song has charted, so it passes WP:NSONGS. Erpert 03:01, 9 April 2015 (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.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)

The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Catch (Allie X song)

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

Non-notable debut single by non-notable singer. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep: I really can't see why this article should be deleted or merged. There's already sources cited in the article that gives the song significant coverage, per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep: I have no idea how my article is not notable. Obviously large institutions like Billboard and TIME think it's notable enough to mention her and her single multiple times. Also aren't you supposed to fully explain how it violates the policies? I don't really see that you did that.SanctuaryX (talk) : 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment If found non-notable, should redirect to the album its on. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment @Sanctuary, it is not your article. Please see WP:OWN. As you mentioned above th time and billboard references are just mentions. Article subject fails to met WP:GNG. The references include mentions at the time reference and billboard reference. Also there are links as references to sales sites of itunes and amazon. Other references are youtube and sound cloud. None of these have significant coverage from WP:RS. The only one that might be considered significant is the interview at WordSeventeen (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment @WordSeventeen I realize I do not "own" the article, but you are supposed to identify that you have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article. Sorry you misunderstood. WP:AVOIDCOI. I fail to see in any way how it does not meet WP:GNG. It has received significant coverage from multiple sources, they come from reliable sources with integrity, the content for most of the article is based on secondary sources, and they are independent of the subject. Moving on, The Youtube/Soundcloud references are for very specific things, like release dates and labels. Not information that can be biased or obfuscated. As quoted directly from WP:RS, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." I am in no way making any such claim with those references. Also, there are two Billboard references, and some of them are not just a mention. The song has also managed to chart, which does put points in it's favor for meeting the WP:NSONGS criteria. There is another interview from Radio.com conducted by Courtney E. Smith. I've further updated the article with even more interviews cited. If you have a problem with a few minor references like the Youtube for publication date, a request for reliable citation should be made, not requesting that entire article be deleted.SanctuaryX (talk) : 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the person doing a nomination for deletion to " have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article." Please redact your personal attack, "No need to be a snob" It is inappropriate to attack the nominator. Also please comment on the content not the editors or nominator. I have no COI, in fact I have no relationship or ties to this non-notable singer or her non-notable debut single. Perhaps it is just too soon. WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see how you still managed to misconstrue my meaning. I had a right to identify my interest in the article and was chastised for doing so. I never, ever said you had any relation to the article. Again, I don't see how any of the information doesn't follow protocols. I suppose we will just wait and see.

SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't know if you are busy or what but please take the time to read and understand what I am saying. I only disclosed I created the article. I am in no way affiliated with the sources of any of the content or the subject. I am incredibly frustrated I did the right thing and am being reprimanded for it.
Comment I have removed the objected content as it was not essential to the article; only the "mentions" remain as they are used only as direct quotations as they are reviewing the song in question. When you have time please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:NSONG. It's been ranked on the Canadian hot 100 and the article cites multiple non-trivial published sources. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per above and these sources and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge to Allie X. Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud. Miniapolis 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment @Miniapolis: There's not a page for "all of her recordings." There's 3 pages for her. 3. One for her, her first major label release, and her only charting single. That's nominal. I did my best not to include anything that has little to nothing to mention. And again, there's alternatives to the WP:GNG, like the WP:MUS.SanctuaryX (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The song has charted, so it passes WP:NSONGS. Erpert 03:01, 9 April 2015 (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.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I
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 procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert 03:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC) CollXtion I CollXtion I (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable studio EP by non-notable singer. References include brief mentions, sales websites, celebrity twitter messages and status, blog posts from fans. This article fails WP:GNG. The EP was "released physically on April 7, 2015" but today is 6 April 2015? This is really just WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Comment I would really like to ask. When you make these nominations are you actually reviewing what content on the article was taken from the sources you're frowning on? Those are general guidelines. The content taken from those sources are minimal and don't seem to fail the criteria for why you cannot use those sources. Your phrasing implies the entire article is a biased and poorly constructed affair based entirely off of these. The "sales website" is Amazon, only for release date, which I have added citations from the publishing company detailing its release schedule. I'm not even going to bother saying anything else. If you have a different paradigm from what the guidelines say than from me, fine. I just hope more people have my view.SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Please show WP:AGF. I always observe WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. I always review and read the article and all the cited "sources". The problems with the cited "sources" are included in the nomination rationale above. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Keep I apologoize again. Anyway, even though I don't agree that these sources are incorrect (and there are no fan postings on blogs, I have no idea what you are talking about there; sorry) I have gone on and removed all of the objectionable content, as they were only extra references, save for the mentions as they are only used for reviews and are direct quotations. The link to the music video still remains. When you have time, please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC) This is the blog/fan post and either a primary source or fansite I refer to. Whichever it is is it, is definitely not a WP:RS and needs to be removed from the article: http://alliexandra.com/post/114330875910/which-one-of-the-producers-including-yourself-in Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) Comment Thank you for edifying. I removed it and tidied other references. On the Catch article as well. Though I would like to ask, why is that not ok? That is a primary source I used to indicate who the producers were on a song. This is from Allie X herself. The WP:RS just says not to interpret and to use caution when using primary sources. Why was that wrong?SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Keep Meets WP:NALBUMS. Single charted on the Canadian hot 100, and album/single/and artist have all been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in major magazines like Billboard and Time. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Keep per above and these sources and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Comment @Miniapolis: I think it should be kept, but I can see how it may not necessarily meet all the criteria for NALBUMS and may need to be merged until it becomes more popular to better satisfy the criteria (if it even does.) But under no circumstance do I think it should be just obliterated as he wants. And it wasn't in anyway intended to be a publicity blitz, I just wanted to try my hand at making articles as these are the first I ever have.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Please see WP:Your first article. Miniapolis 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC) I did read that. I would've never contested any of this or made these articles in the first place if I thought it was against the policy. I don't know if you were trying to be helpful or rude so I will leave it at that. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (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.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I

The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert 03:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

CollXtion I

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

Non-notable studio EP by non-notable singer. References include brief mentions, sales websites, celebrity twitter messages and status, blog posts from fans. This article fails WP:GNG. The EP was "released physically on April 7, 2015" but today is 6 April 2015? This is really just WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I would really like to ask. When you make these nominations are you actually reviewing what content on the article was taken from the sources you're frowning on? Those are general guidelines. The content taken from those sources are minimal and don't seem to fail the criteria for why you cannot use those sources. Your phrasing implies the entire article is a biased and poorly constructed affair based entirely off of these. The "sales website" is Amazon, only for release date, which I have added citations from the publishing company detailing its release schedule. I'm not even going to bother saying anything else. If you have a different paradigm from what the guidelines say than from me, fine. I just hope more people have my view.SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please show WP:AGF. I always observe WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. I always review and read the article and all the cited "sources". The problems with the cited "sources" are included in the nomination rationale above. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep I apologoize again. Anyway, even though I don't agree that these sources are incorrect (and there are no fan postings on blogs, I have no idea what you are talking about there; sorry) I have gone on and removed all of the objectionable content, as they were only extra references, save for the mentions as they are only used for reviews and are direct quotations. The link to the music video still remains. When you have time, please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the blog/fan post and either a primary source or fansite I refer to. Whichever it is is it, is definitely not a WP:RS and needs to be removed from the article: http://alliexandra.com/post/114330875910/which-one-of-the-producers-including-yourself-in Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk)

Comment Thank you for edifying. I removed it and tidied other references. On the Catch article as well. Though I would like to ask, why is that not ok? That is a primary source I used to indicate who the producers were on a song. This is from Allie X herself. The WP:RS just says not to interpret and to use caution when using primary sources. Why was that wrong?SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:NALBUMS. Single charted on the Canadian hot 100, and album/single/and artist have all been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in major magazines like Billboard and Time. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per above and these sources and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment @Miniapolis: I think it should be kept, but I can see how it may not necessarily meet all the criteria for NALBUMS and may need to be merged until it becomes more popular to better satisfy the criteria (if it even does.) But under no circumstance do I think it should be just obliterated as he wants. And it wasn't in anyway intended to be a publicity blitz, I just wanted to try my hand at making articles as these are the first I ever have.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:Your first article. Miniapolis 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I did read that. I would've never contested any of this or made these articles in the first place if I thought it was against the policy. I don't know if you were trying to be helpful or rude so I will leave it at that. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep all - Allie X, her album, and single have received significant coverage in reliable sources and thus are notable. (Note that the album come out next week, so much of the coverage is within the last week.) These nominations seem to have been a huge waste of time as notability is not remotely borderline. Given the desire to discount even a 1000 word Billboard article, this is eitehr an epic misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages guidelines or a bad faith nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:NMUSIC #2 by having a verifiable hit on a national music chart. The article could do with a serious copyedit, but deletion is not the answer. Ritchie333 11:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Snow keep♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)