Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klaypex (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 no consensus. ansh666 07:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klaypex

Klaypex (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)

Only two of the article's present sources come from a single reliable source: Billboard. Even then, the two sources are merely track listings and not significant coverage. All the other sources, plus what I've found on Google, appear to be music blogs, random videos and bios. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - assuming that youredm.com is a reliable source (and it appears to satisfy the editorial requirements), they cover this trio The Untz also has covered them, although I am less sure of their reliability, but they do have an editorial staff, and they even named one of this trio's songs one of the top 10 electro songs of 2013. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can't decide as the article has some notability to me. But, the article is far too vague and stubby and it doesn't really conform to WP:MUSICBIO, stepping the borderline for deletion. Tending and cleanup needed for the article. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep substantially covered in reliable independent sources. Charted. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; sourcing is unsufficient for a stant-alone article. EDM artists are a dime a dozen and they generally have to accomplish something significant to warrant an encyclopedia article. The page is mostly unsourced; this content belongs on the group's Facebook page, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Nothing with semblance to significant covg. in prominent RS.Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 09:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most of the content is unsourced and some of the reference/web site provided cant be reached. Meeting WP:MUSICBIO is weak for stand alone article.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reference for their charting from Billboard is valid, this appears to meet criteria for WP:MUSIC. No comment on the content. Ifnord (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ifnord, but cut down to only the solid reliable sources. It's time to revise WP:MUSIC if anyone with a charting song automatically qualifies. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. Perhaps a discussion where only certain charts, like the top singles, are criteria. Fringe charts may be exempt. Ifnord (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, abolish the charting bit entirely. And once this is revised, renominate for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2017 (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.