Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blak Jak (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lapablo (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Jak (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:MUSICBIO and no WP:RS Lapablo (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Author Keep I don't understand the nomination at all...the references are reliable sources (Allmusic, the LA Times; the Billboard links have rotted, but chart positions are also published in paper books by Joel Whitburn, so we can recover those), and the sources and chart positions together establish a claim to notability at WP:MUSIC. I'm also adding a new reference from The Fader, another substantial and high-quality source. Chubbles (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. The L.A. Times is reliable. The Fader seems reliable in this context. Reliability of Allmusic looks unclear, but 2 is enough. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll note that AMG is often brought to RSN (perhaps because it is so widely used as a source here), but other discussions of it have been less critical, and it has an editorial board and has published multiple paper books (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). Chubbles (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The problems with All Music, Chubbles (talk), is not what it once was (as evidenced by the print collections that you linked) but, rather, what it has become under the ownership of the Rovi/TiVo database--a online hybrid of older content with editorial oversight along side the indiscriminate cataloging (per their mission statement) of any and all product for sale, often culled from user submitted promotional materials. Wise editors should use a critical eye in judging content added to that site post-2007; it's fast turning into a music industry equivalent of IMDB and probably half of the newer entries never would have passed muster under the scrutiny of editorial review on merit. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as clearly passes WP:NMUSIC with coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Billboard, LaTimes and Allmusic which is certainly a reliable source as continually agreed by the WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Music as its bios and reviews are by a professional staff with music knowledge, the above commenter seems to want to disrepute every possible source in contradiction to accepted consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per quality of references. Atlantic306 (talk) regarding your characterization of my comments above, I suspect you may be confusing me with another editor? It is not at all my intent...and a favor: although I have been active on wikipedia AfD (primarily musicians) for about 5 years or so, I still do not know where these discussions that arrive at consensus take place. I see them referred to often, and have even asked within comments, like here, how to actively engage myself in the debates over sources, but I have never received an answer. I feel my professional background and current active participation in music press and promotion gives me legitimate insight into identifying truly reliable sources. I've noticed especially a misunderstanding of AllMusic based on, apparently, a long ago consensus among editors who may never actually have worked with or submitted content to AllMuisc. I really want to contribute to the assessments, and I'd appreciate some direction. Thanks. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions about AMG in particular have unfolded over many years and are scattered through the pages of the RSN discussion board. It comes up a lot because it is far and away the most comprehensive online music database with any sort of editorial control (the other contenders - Discogs and, well, us - being user-submitted), and so is used extensively on music pages. Editors tend to relate to it in one of two camps - "generally, good enough", and "suspect" - and I see miniature discussions pop up about its general reliability on the talk pages of articles fairly frequently, though they typically end with a judgment about some particular artist or piece of musical information rather than a blanket pronouncement about the site in toto. I don't think there's ever been, like, an RfC or something like that to make a definitive determination about when and how it is appropriate to use. Chubbles (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2019 (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.