K-391 (music producer) – Allow recreation. It's unfortunate that this has gotten bounced back and forth between AfC and DRV, and now back to AfC. I know it sometimes doesn't seem that way, but we do try to keep the WP:BURO to a minimum. In any case, there's clear agreement here that the two prior AfD's are not a bar to recreating this. If AfC accepts it, somebody can still bring it back to AfD for a third round, but WP:G4 won't apply. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Since this article was deleted, the subject has passed criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO for having releases that reached numerous chart positions in five different countries. A draft exists at Draft:K-391 that demonstrates such notability, and this venue was recommended by Robert McClenon as a means of getting the draft accepted. Jalen D. Folf(talk) 00:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While doing NPP I removed a G4 speedy delete with the edit summary "A redirect is a legitimate alternative to deletion. Not discussed at first AfD and was reason for speedy close at 2nd. Take to RfD if redirect is felt to be inappropriate." I have not looked at the draft but would have reacted quite differently to a G6. There was a 2017 AfD that closed as delete and a 2018 AfD which was speedy closed when it turned into a redirect. In either case enough time has passed that clearly it would be ripe for potential recreation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the new post-AfD sources. I note the AfD was a very strong delete, and MUSICBIO is just a list of indicators of probably passing at AfD. Are there new independent secondary sources? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation and testing at AfD. The AfD is over 18 months ago, and new things have happened. I think it has a better than 50% chance for survival. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did some work on it. Main problem was the grammar, general formatting and foreign-language sources. I think I fixed most issues and the article could maybe pass as a low class start-class article. The article does prove that he had charted multiple times in several charts, so he definitely criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Just a matter of whether or not it passes general notability. Micro (Talk) 06:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both the original AFD and the brief second one were before the 2018 re-release of Ignite, which meets WP:NSONG. At a first glance he easily passes WP:CCOS and passes WP:MUSBIO. On a second glance, sigcov of K-391 is limited, Ignite may be more credited to Walker than Nilsson[1], Different World is primarily a Walker song, and Lily is questionably notable. Here's a possibility: Pivot to an article on the song. Provided that it includes sufficient sourced material on critical coverage, production/development, etc, it would be reasonable to briefly include K-391's background, the relationship of K-391 to Walker (the former was one of the inspirations for the latter), and their subsequent collaborations. Then Redirect to that ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting as the closing admin that I've been alerted to this discussion, but it seems like it's not my close that is being contested, but whether it is now outdated. I have no particular opinion on that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-creation in Draft - The filer should be allowed to submit a draft to review via Articles for Creation. There was no error by the closer. The previous delete may have been a matter of WP:TOOSOON. This does not imply that the draft will be accepted, but it does not imply that the draft will not be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
