Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-five
- 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 delete. While one or two dubious but passable sources do seem to demonstrate that this individual had a charting single in France, there has been no success sourcing any other statements in the article. There is clearly very little enthusiasm for keeping this article around, and ultimately it seems to me that it will remain a basically unsourced BLP unless someone magics up some sources nobody else can find. Hence, this article is getting deleted at this point but, due to the fact that this individual probably does pass the arbitrary notability threshold, I have no particular objection to the article being recreated at any time if adequately sourced for verifiability. ~ mazca talk 10:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- J-five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This rapper has (apparently) had a song or two hit the charts in some European countries, so arguably he passes WP:MUSICBIO based solely on the second criteria. However he does not meet any of the other criteria, and I cannot find any discussion of "J-five" when searching under that moniker or his real name. Searching under J-5 or J5 is basically impossible, plus in hip hop circles "J5" is generally shorthand for the vastly more well known group Jurassic 5. This is a basically unsourced bio (chart listings don't count), and I cannot find any secondary sources which discuss J-five and which we could use in the article. He seems to fail the GNG, and there are problems of verifiability as well, unless there are sources I'm missing. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more sources and claims for notability can be presented. All the claims in the article are not sourced or sourced improperly. McMarcoP (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep apparently had a single chart in 3 major countries, although I'm not certain if "top40-charts.com" is a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: Cleaned up article. Passes WP:MUSICBIO, as the single "Modern Times" featured on music charts and was certified in France. Mattg82 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit better, but all of the sources are still links to web pages (which may or may not be reliable) that mention something about his song(s) on the charts. Remember that WP:MUSICBIO says that a musician "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria." J-five clearly only meets one of those (which is telling) and meeting one does not guarantee his notability. My argument in the nomination is that he fails the general notability guideline ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") simply because I do not see any coverage of this artist in reliable sources, which is why nothing is sourced in this article except for the chart positions (if anything the song Modern Times is more notable than J-five himself, and perhaps we should only keep that). I think those in favor of keeping need to address the contention that the subject fails the WP:GNG, because having one or two songs chart in a couple of countries in Europe is not necessarily sufficient to keep a bio, and if we are unable to source the basic facts about J-five's life and musical career then all we'll be left with is "had a popular song in France", which we can cover at Modern Times (song). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I gave (1&2) are reliable according to WP:GOODCHARTS but ref3 does need changing to a more reliable source. I have no strong feelings to keep or delete, but it seemed to justify been kept using WP:MUSICBIO as a guide so I said keep, but I do agree that general notability is a problem and reading WP:Notability (music) further it says articles could still be deleted even if it passes MUSICBIO criteria, so on that basis I have changed my vote to weak keep. Mattg82 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit better, but all of the sources are still links to web pages (which may or may not be reliable) that mention something about his song(s) on the charts. Remember that WP:MUSICBIO says that a musician "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria." J-five clearly only meets one of those (which is telling) and meeting one does not guarantee his notability. My argument in the nomination is that he fails the general notability guideline ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") simply because I do not see any coverage of this artist in reliable sources, which is why nothing is sourced in this article except for the chart positions (if anything the song Modern Times is more notable than J-five himself, and perhaps we should only keep that). I think those in favor of keeping need to address the contention that the subject fails the WP:GNG, because having one or two songs chart in a couple of countries in Europe is not necessarily sufficient to keep a bio, and if we are unable to source the basic facts about J-five's life and musical career then all we'll be left with is "had a popular song in France", which we can cover at Modern Times (song). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure. The WP:GOODCHARTS page cites, in reference to lescharts, "While this chart appears to have been archived correctly, there are problems surrounding this archive site that make it questionable. Further use of this archive is discouraged, and people are encouraged to change links to this site to point to other sources." So I don't feel compelled to vote !delete, I'm on the fence if this really warrants being kept, too. JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2010 (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.