Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Johnny Ca$h

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Closing administrator's rationale

If you choose to add follow-on comments, please do so in a separate section below this. Do not interrupt my comments here.

This was a bundle nom; Where comments apply to one or two of the articles only, the following symbols are used:

  • (A) Johnny Ca$h
  • (B) Bang Fo Bread
  • (C) Money Gang

NOTE: (B)(C) added on 22:12, 13 February 2008. Users who left any comment after the other articles were added are assumed to apply their recommendation to all three unless they specifically stated otherwise. Such users have the symbol (+) next to their name.

[edit] Raw !vote analysis

  • Delete and Salt
    • ALL
  1. Dchall1 (2 edits) <nominator (B)(C)>
  2. Jayron32 (+) (2 edits)
  3. LaraLove (+)
  4. Doc Strange (+) (19 edits)
    • (A) only
  1. Jfire <nominator (A)>
  2. Corvus cornix (2 edits)
  3. Tasc0
  4. Precious Roy
  • Keep
    • All
  1. Same As It Ever Was (+)(5 edits)
  2. Payne2thamaxx (+) (4 edits) <--- less weighting due to incivility
  3. Pwnage8 (+)
  4. Wicked Wayz (+)
    • (A) only
  1. JJL
  2. TenPoundHammer
  3. XMarxThaSpot
  4. ComixFlix
  5. Flesh-n-Bone
  6. TheNextOne
  • Non-participatory
  1. SineBot (signing unsigned comments)
  2. The wub (deletion sorting)
  3. TimVickers (abstain)

[edit] Arguments

  • Valid Delete Arguments
  1. Fails WP:MUSIC
  2. Fails WP:NOT
  3. no (reliable) sources to assert notability
  4. WP:NOT#Memorial
  • Non-Valid Delete Arguments
  1. Nom: Speedied multiple times (A)
    1. If a viable WP:CSD#G4 candidate; tag as such.
  2. Nom: Deleted at AfD as Johnny Castaneda Jr. (A)
    1. If a viable WP:CSD#G4 candidate; tag as such.
  3. Nom: Previous consensus was subject fails WP:MUSIC (A)
    1. Does not address this iteration of the article
  4. Delete per nom
    1. the entire nomination has been invalidated
  5. "delete unless" (quoting criteria)
    1. non-assertion
  6. delete per (another editor who's comment has been invalidated)
  • Valid Keep Arguments
  1. released albums for a major California label (A)
  2. subject of at least a couple reliable sources (A)
  3. article considerably improved since nomination (A)
  • Non-Valid Keep Arguments
  1. Keep per nom.
    1. Nonsense
  2. death made national headlines
    1. no evidence provided from WP:RS
  3. WP:OSE
  4. per results of Google search
    1. Google is not the arbiter of notability, and comment does not elaborate what was found
  5. death flooded news sites and channels
    1. no evidence provided from WP:RS
  6. had multiple releases on a notable label
    1. overextension of notability criteria
  7. was signed to Thizz Entertainment, a major record label and released four albums
    1. no evidence provided from WP:RS; overextension of notability criteria
  8. member of a major label, released several albums
    1. no evidence provided from WP:RS; overextension of notability criteria
  9. page is referenced
  10. article looks good
  11. Been alongside (notable artist)
    1. WP:NOTINHERITED
  12. Was friends with (notable artist)
    1. WP:NOTINHERITED
  13. if Ca$h is not notable, then who is?
    1. Nonsense
  14. X has article so why noy Y
    1. X:Y is a classic argument to avoid in deletion discussions
  15. WP:ILIKEIT

[edit] Summary

The contributions of all users participating in this AfD have been reviewed, and none have been identified as new users or single-purpose accounts. There were also no anonymous participants, although being anonymous does not automatically disqualify participation at AfD. The addition of two articles to this AfD quite late into the discussion was not a good idea, and has greatly complicated the determination of rough consensus. Users are cautioned not to do that in the future; one can always separately nominate additional related articles and mention it in the debate. Having said all that, the participants were nearly split overall, with a slight lean toward keep. The argumentary strength, however of the keeps was low. Many of the deletes were as well, however several concerns were raised, and were substantiated by reference to policies and guideleines that are quite relevant to the subject. My decision is delete all. JERRY talk contribs 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)