Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biggest-selling female musician (2nd nomination)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest-selling female musician

The article Biggest-selling female musician has been nominated for deletion. A record of a previous vote on the matter can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biggest-selling female musician.

• Delete. This article is superfluous, proves nothing, and leads only to inflated fan figures as partisans of one singer (not "musician") or the other "compete" with each other for highest sales figures. The article violates all three of Wikipedia's basic policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is nothing on this page that could not be, or is not, better said on the individual artist pages. ProhibitOnions 13:49:10, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

• Abstain. The reason this article exists is to keep this "debate" from wrecking the individual artist pages, which it was doing before. In a better world, no one would care about this "title" and the article would not need to exist. Wasted Time R 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's Useless. This article can not even tell for certain who is the best selling female singer. Some of the singers on this list could not possibly be the best selling female artist. For example Whitney Houston and Alla Pugacheva, whoever she is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.117.175 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 August 2005.

The article used to have a conclusion, but an admin took it out on the grounds it violated the no-original-research rule. Wasted Time R 13:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The constant edit wars between fans of each musician are troublesome, yes (today I caught two anons, most likely overzealous Mariah Carey fans, removing content from other artists' sections), but I'm worried that the disagreements will spill over to the articles of the artists mentioned if this article is deleted. As a regular contributor to Mariah Carey's article, I'd prefer if that didn't happen. Extraordinary Machine 15:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to be an interesting and well referenced article on a much disputed issue. - SimonP 14:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable fluff. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Madchester 14:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and plenty of references. A notable topic. Cleanup maybe? Christopher Parham (talk) 16:34, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an interesting article. Capitalistroadster 17:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has valid references, plus it helps to keep the debate off the main article of these singers. Journalist (talk • contribs)

Comment. WP is not a discussion forum. This page and List of best-selling music artists is just a battleground for fans to duke it out with unverifiable sources. There's no universal counting technique for records sold, let alone a universal body for giving global sales certifications. --Madchester 18:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The numbers may be "unverifiable fluff", but the debate itself is notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Leave fans to bicker on messageboards, not on Wikipedia. You can't verify the numbers, since there is no universal body to tabulate these figures. Fans will obviously use estimates to suit their own POV.For example: "According to Dion's Wikipedia article, she has sold 184 million albums and 28 million singles, making her total worldwide sales 212 million. Her record company is not as certain about the sales of her singles. They state that she has sold 28 million singles, but they are not sure about the sales in other French-speaking parts of the world." That's cringeworthy for a suppoesdly encyclopedic article. --Madchester 18:43, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete What is the point of this? If fans want to bicker, why should an 'encyclopedia' accommodate them? I am not even sure how this will prevent boosterism on individual entries. Besides, Anita Mui isn't even listed on the page making it highly suspect and euro-centric. Dottore So 19:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, topic is obviously of interest and can be handled in an NPOV way. Kappa 21:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, This is a bad faith nomination. It has already been voted on a month ago, and what is worse, the issue itself had at that time already was on VFD see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Best selling Female artist. --Nicodemus75 21:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The reasons why I nominated this are: a) List of best-selling music artists has been nominated for deletion for essentially similar reasons; and b) the significant problems with this article have not been resolved in the six weeks since it was last nominated. Note that the majority last time supported deletion. ProhibitOnions 20:18:24, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

• Delete. The article's a platform for fans to promote their favorite artist(s). Looks like propoganda from a studio press junket or a bad episode of TRL. --LeoTheLion 22:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keeping the garbage and fighting out of individual articles isn't a good enough reason—we should be trying to keep the garbage and fighting out of Wikipedia as a whole. —Charles O'Rourke 00:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article describes a notable debate. The media often toss around the phrase "best selling female artist," and do not always refer to the same person. HollyAm 01:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Comment. We should have this, even if it is just to help protect other pages from vandalism. --Apyule 02:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Biggest-selling? Oh, for the love of grammar, rename this to "best-selling". Radiant_>|< 10:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per Radiant. --Apyule 12:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Can't possibly be covered as effectively in the individuals' articles. Osomec 14:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The fact that there's a lengthy disclaimer at the top of the article does not bode well for the validity of the article's contents. The article was created with good intentions, but it's just not wikipedia material. --207.236.66.194 19:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.