Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Sharp

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 11:10, 20 February 2020 (→Rosemary Sharp: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Sharp

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rosemary Sharp (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)

Much like The Spurs, this seems to be a case where meeting at least one criterion of WP:NMUSIC (namely, having a charted single) is outpaced by WP:V.

  1. Searching "Rosemary Sharp" + "Canyon Creek" gave no results on Google Books or Newspapers.com.
  2. "Rosemary Sharp" + any of her singles gave no results on Newspapers.com.
  3. The only hits for "Rosemary Sharp" + "If You're Gonna Tell Me Lies" on Google Books are the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs books, which verify the Billboard chart positions and no more.
  4. The only results for "Rosemary Sharp" + any of her song titles on americanradiohistory.com are just the chart listings from Billboard and RPM, except for one picture of her with a caption, and one passing mention of a radio program director giving approval to the single. No reviews of her singles were ever published as far as RPM and Billboard are concerned.

Normally an artist with a top-10 hit on any major chart would be notable without question. But unlike with The Spurs, where one source was eventually found, the evidence seems more on the "fails WP:V" end. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I guess I'm getting predictable? But, yes, this passes WP:MUSIC by a country mile, with four charting singles. That they are low on the charts isn't the issue; charting at all, with four separate singles, is far and away sufficient indication of musical notability. We should not expect a bounty of Gnews hits for a musician who had hit singles in the mid-1980s; this is a classic case of why WP:MUSIC is so valuable - because it provides a concrete, independent indication of larger significance (via charting singles) where the usual search engines are likely to be a poor yardstick of the historical record. Chubbles (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly think that a website that has nearly every issue of Billboard, Radio & Records, Gavin Report, Cash Box, and RPM is a "poor yardstick". I've found artists in the 21st century who charted once, got literally zero coverage, and were never heard from again. Would you be able to find anything on Mickey Dimichele? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are six important magazines, but they are hardly comprehensive - and, mind you, she did make the Billboard charts, four times (and the Canadian charts! An international top-20, three times!!). We have long held charting singles as the gold standard for musician notability (much like fully-professional league play for WP:SPORT), and yet strangely today I find myself in two discussions arguing WP:MUSIC against GNG-or-bust positions. Is there some wind that WP:MUSIC is to be deprecated, or something? I sure missed the boat on that RfC. Chubbles (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Explain to me how "six important magazines" are not enough (ETA: Especially when one of those six magazines is the exact one where her song got to #9). Explain to me how literally thousands of newspapers stretching centuries -- including the Nashville newspaper, which one would expect to mention a charted country artist at least once -- are not enough. We're not saying that WP:NMUSIC should be deprecated, just that it's not ironclad. Common sense should prevail that if there is literally no coverage found among what is clearly a fairly wide net of sources. It's a big Internet, and these are exactly the sources we should expect to have given this artist coverage at least once. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have reliable sources substantiating that this artist was an international hitmaker. That is what it means to be a notable musician. (Or at least, it is most certainly, and obviously, one of the senses of what we mean when we say "notable".) It is verifiable, supported with reliable sources, and meets common sense about what the notability goals are supposed to accomplish. That is sufficient; it meets the minimum threshold for inclusion here. Chubbles (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "International hitmaker" is a stretch when her song only got to a rock bottom position on a genre chart, and only got to #9 in Canada because it met CanCon laws. What is verifiable here besides "she charted"? Literally not a single iota of biographical information about her is verifiable. Can you find any biographical info on her? Because I sure as shit couldn't. And that's what matters moreso than the numbers. WP:BURDEN falls on you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't own the Whitburn country book, but he usually provides some basic biographical data, if this is a good-faith effort to improve the article. As far as I'm concerned, if the article only provides the chart information, that's fine. It's okay to have a stub for an encyclopedic topic. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the article as is. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, we're able to verify her place of birth! A little biographical information. Yes, there's nothing wrong with permastubs - sometimes, articles will be short. The article plainly states notability. Chubbles (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Chubbles in that the individual does clearly fulfill WP:MUSIC. The issue wouldn't be as clear-cut if they'd only charted once, and only maybe. But repeatedly, and not to mention in a chart recognized by WP:CHART? We have guidelines for a reason, and it is in these cases where that guidance proves invaluable, because it allows us to make an accurate statement regarding notability when the article would otherwise be destined for deletion. That the article is a stub is of no relevance in this discussion. Please adhere to guidelines unless there are aggravating circumstances; they exist for our benefit. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate if you don't misconstrue what I said, please. My view is that WP:MUSIC is to be used in precisely these situations, hence my leaning towards keeping the article. We can disagree, obviously. You seem to argue that one needs many quality sources on top of satisfying certain field-specific criteria, and that's completely understandable. Some believe WP:GNG should take precedent over everything else. We don't all have to think alike, you know! I think the encyclopedia would be much poorer if we were so orthodox in our thinking. Best, PK650 (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop accosting me and whomever disagrees with you. This is a deletion discussion, not some sort of ritual where everyone says yes. I've seen you take a similar approach in different music-related AfDs. Let people express their opinions and consensus be reached in peace. Chubbles and I shouldn't feel afraid of participating. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So keep anything that has a controversal discussion even if there's no sources huh? Sounds like a good way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not what I said. Please re-read my keep vote. Samboy (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"'we should keep pretty much anything that charts is to avoid long contentious discussions'. Sounds like that's what your saying to me. I see no caveat in that there still needs to be broad coverage in usable sources. Plus, that's exactly why you voted keep here. To help avoid contentious discussion right? Even though there isn't broad, reliable coverage of the person. Or was it some other reason that I'm missing? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ever state that a controversial deletion discussion is grounds for keeping an article. To address what you are saying, “broad coverage” in the context of musicians and bands includes being on a reliably sourced notable chart. Being on a chart from a reliable source (e.g. Billboard) is in and of itself significant coverage as per WP:NMUSIC and as per previous deletion discussions. Samboy (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Being on a chart from a reliable source (e.g. Billboard) is in and of itself significant coverage", I don't know if I'd agree with that. At least for the person having their article. Maybe in a list or something, but this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedia's are dependent on content. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of less then stub articles that should be lists trying to be passed off as legitimate encyclopedic content. Like in this case, all we know about the person is that she had some chart topping music. We know absolutely nothing else about her though. The page is suppose to be about the artist, and there's literally nothing about her on it. That's not encyclopedic at all. To me, the chart thing is secondary to the general GNGs. That's why the GNGs are "general". They apply in a wide range of cases. Otherwise, why have them? Because every topic has its own specific notability guidelines that we could follow instead. In this case the person was like 42 on a sub chart or something. I definitely don't think that's worth ignoring the GNG rules over. Maybe if she was at least in the top 10 or something beyond just essentially being a one or three hit wonder, but in this case it would only be for a list. Articles are meant to be "articles." I'd assume anyone that charted high enough for an article would also have broad coverage though and I'm pretty sure the rule assumes that also. Not that we would save an article about someone, with zero content in the article about them, just because they were 78th on some sub chart. No where does it say the charting rule supersedes the GNG either. Plus, I don't think every one hit wonder band or song should have an article about them. Especially in a sub category of music and if there's nothing else to have in the article. Plus as a side note to that, wouldn't using billboard as its own citation be considered a primary source, as its self referential? I'd think for it to be a reliable source it would have to be an article about the artist charting. Not the chart itself and in this case the Billboard links don't even work anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two kinds of sources we use in Wikipedia. One kind is the sources used to establish notability: Significant (e.g. being on a song chart) coverage in reliable sources (it has to be a reliable chart, e.g. Billboard) independent of the subject. Once notability is established, we are free to use other sources, such as self published sources, including the artist’s personal web page or Discogs to flesh out an article (as long as the claims are non-controversial). The purpose of the notability guidelines is to protect the Wikipedia from self promotion, hoaxes, and from articles which are not helpful to people browsing the Wikipedia. With musicians, the question is: Does anyone care about this musician’s music? If they did chart, then, yes, people have cared enough about the artist’s music that they merit a Wikipedia article. WP:NMUSIC is just as authoritative as WP:GNG; both are notability guidelines. There is no contradiction between the two; WP:NMUSIC just clarifies that having a song or album chart is significant coverage in and of itself. Samboy (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Once notability is established, we are free to use other sources", Per WP:NMUSIC "If the subject is not notable in the music guidelines" section. "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia's goals include neither tiny articles that can never be expanded, nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." That sounds pretty cut and dry to me that it's not just about notability due to charting, and that if in-depth coverage isn't also available there shouldn't be an article about the person. I don't see how the guideline I quoted can be any clearer about it. You can't just forgo in-depth coverage because the person had a few hits. Let alone say we can flesh out the article some other time if we wan't to, but that the in-depth coverage thing is somehow secondary to notability from charting or not relevant. No where in the guidelines does it say that. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate full Wikipedia article can be based primarily on the artist charting multiple times, when and where the songs charted, and their peak position. Even if the article will be reasonably short then based on entirely independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage (i.e. they charted) of the subject, it will be long enough to be a full Wiki article, since the Wikipedia does not have a set minimum length for a full article. We can use self published sources to flesh it out, as desired. The question we ask here is not “Can we make an article 500 words or longer using only reliable independent third party non-trivial mentions?”, the question we ask here is “Did the subject get independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources?” Since this artist charted, and since we have established that charting is non-trivial coverage (as per WP:NMUSIC), this artist should have a Wikipedia entry. The argument being presented here that this artist is somehow not notable only makes sense if the page WP:NMUSIC did not exist. Samboy (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your making it a black and white thing, where there's either notability or there isn't, when it's not one. The question isn't is if the artist is just "notable", it's if they are notable and have in-depth coverage. Your ignoring that both are required per WP:NMUSIC. Which you keep citing. You can't just cherry pick standards from WP:NMUSIC when it suites you but ignore them when it doesn't. So where's the in-depth coverage required by WP:NMUSIC the artist to have their own article? A chart might be "notable", but it's also trivial. Which 100% matters. A chart should be taken as a standard of notability yes, but not the only standard. No single source should. If it was a company article one mention in the Wallstreet journal isn't enough. It has to be taken as a part of whole. That's why it's reliable "sources." It would be ridiculous to say coverage doesn't matter simply because the artist charted. Especially because WP:NMUSIC says it does. No does it say "see if the artist charted and then call it good and stop there." As far as WP:STUBDEF, it says "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." So stubs are deleted based on them having little information and I'd assume this is the place it would happen at. Per the AfD page, "(AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." That's it. Articles that lack in-depth coverage are AfDed, discussed here, and deleted because of those discussions all the time. So, I'm not sure what your talking about that AfD's aren't for "that." With music related articles it would be be ridiculous to not discuss the lack of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources if it doesn't exist because then they would never be deleted based on that standard. In this case, if we keep the article simply because the subject charted, without also considering it's lack of in-depth, realistically we can't do another AfD for lack of in-depth coverage later. There's nothing making music related articles exempt from it. Charting ones or not. WP:NMUSIC states in-depth coverage matters, WP:STUBDEF says articles containing little information can be deleted, and we discuss it here all the time. So, I really don't get what your arguing about or what your point is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating yourself and making the same points over and over. Are you unable to let someone else have the last word on a subject? I won’t waste the closing admin’s time by repeating myself again. Samboy (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like you didn't repeat yourself or your not letting someone else have the last word by your last two messages, but that's cool. Whatever you say. You clearly have no other argument and your obviously unable to actually respond to what I said. Btw, my point about lack of in-depth coverage being completely valid grounds for an AfD wasn't repeating myself and it was like half the comment. It's obvious you have no response to it though. So this conversation is a massive waste of my time and I'm done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, WP:NMUSIC says charting singles don't over ride in-depth coverage and this subject lacks it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets NMUSIC easily. This is a pre-internet topic, and country music magazines from this era have not been indexed, in general. Brief, but verifiable encyclopedic information about the topic is included, and I don't see an improvement by removing the material. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:24, 17 February 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosemary_Sharp&oldid=941741526"