Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Franceschi

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 redirect to You Me At Six. MBisanz ^talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Franceschi

The notability of this artist is in question. I found 4 articles with John Franceschi as the subject (5 but one's a duplicate) but I'm not sure if the sources are reliable/independent. I'm not 'voting' either way but I think a discussion is the best way to resolve this issue. OlYeller^Talktome 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC) OlYeller[reply]

Note: This article has been deleted twice for lack of proof of notability.OlYeller^Talktome 18:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just for anyone reviewing AfDs, this is about a pop singer, not an artist. I wish nominators would give a proper indication of the article subject, so that people reviewing AfDs who don't care about particular topics can move on rather than have to read the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you want to decide if articles should be kept or deleted without reading the articles? And since when are singers or any kind not artists? I fear for the articles you comment on.OlYeller^Talktome 01:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not at all what I meant. I know very little about what sources in the field of popular music are reliable, so would prefer to leave the judgement of notability to others, but I feel that I can make a useful contribution to discussions about visual artists. I read every AfD nomination here, as I'm sure many others do, so it is helpful for an AfD nominator to give an accurate indication of the field in which an article subject operates so that we can decide which ones to investigate further. In normal English usage the unqualified word "artist", unless there is context that indicates otherwise, means "visual artist", not "pop singer". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand your first point and I'll do my best to more accurately describe a nomination in the future. As for your completely unreferenced conjecture that the English speaking society means visual artist and not pop singer when they say, "artist," I disagree (look at any listing of a musical album). I would though, ask you not to bite the newcomers and phrase your criticisms in a more productive way (Enlgish speaking society doesn't consider "I wish nominators..." to be civil). No matter how new or old the user you're criticizing is. OlYeller^Talktome 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across as uncivil. I didn't mean it that way. As to your point about the word "artist" on any listing of a music album, that's why I included "unless there is context that indicates otherwise" in my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage fails WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to You Me At Six - I'd say merge but there's really nothing to merge there. Artw (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC with trivial coverage etc. Redirect to You Me At Six. Mfield (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (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.