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 keep. Only one editor seriously arguing for deletion, and with a rather subjective argument that doesn't seem to have gotten much support. The article should of course be watched closely to stop promotional or spammy material being added. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiggo

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiggo, and is being relisted here as a result of a deletion review, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 8. My listing here is a purely administrative function and I offer no opinion on the desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not only does it meet GNG (I've just added some more refs, including an article in Spiegel Online, and there are more out there if you want to read them), but it meets our music notability criteria of WP:BAND as it had a single that charted in Germany.Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and great work Epeefleche Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. They do not meet WP:GNG nor do they meet WP:BAND, this article has had a huge self promotion issue in the past with many socks adding content that claims notability but is clearly not. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Why, for example, do you think that having a single on a country's national music chart does not satisfy wp:Band? It most certainly does. Furthermore, any past self-promotion by socks is wholly irrelevant at AfD -- it's simply not cause for deletion. For your !vote to have weight, it has to be based on wp policies.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my reading of the wikipedia policies says that it does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BAND, you are welcome to disagree, as you have, but as this is "not a vote" it is more up to the closer do decide who's opinion is right. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take -- as just one example -- wp:BAND. Are you asserting that having a single on a country's national music chart does not satisfy wp:Band? Or are you asserting that this band did not have a single on a country's national music chart? Please note that wp:DISCUSSAFD says: "When an editor offers arguments ... that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy ... a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."--Epeefleche (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CW, in regards to your position "had a huge self promotion issue in the past with many socks adding content that claims notability but is clearly not" - the article has been totally rewritten since then and the fact that previous socking occured is not a factor in this discussion Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm convinced it has been solved, and it is pertinant to this discussion as if those socks come to this page it will be very relevent.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to me socking seems not of value in a discussion , simply tag the posts if there are any and discount them Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — As the closer of the original AfD, if Epeefleche's link regarding the charting of the single is reliable, then I'd see no reason why the artist wouldn't meet WP:BAND and should therefore be kept. The main issue on the original AfD was some people saying, effectively, "so totally meets GNG" while others were saying, effectively, "so totally doesn't meet GNG and fails BAND," so it mainly came down to whether the artist met WP:BAND. *shrug* FWIW. --slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Agree that national charting of a single meets wp:BAND, etc.

2) The article now reflects a number of additional RS refs covering Indiggo added after the close of the last AfD--so the argument that it meets GNG is even stronger.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A position that a topic passes WP:GNG is not required to address the issue of whether the topic passes or doesn't pass WP:BAND; any more than the position would address the issue of whether or not the topic passes WP:PROF. Reference: the lede of WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A note about swisscharts.com... I see it used a lot as a reference on Wikipedia in music-related articles (doing a search for "swisscharts.com" on the encyclopedia comes up with almost 3,000 results) and there was a discussion about it from 2008 on the reliable sources noticeboard where it's suggested that it might be okay to use (it was a very short discussion admittedly). -- Atama頭 04:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say the charting in Germany is enough to pass WP:BAND. And looking at the sources, quite a few do mention Indiggo just in passing rather than in-depth, but I think there is still enough RS coverage to support WP:GNG too. Thrub (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as far as I can make it out, the only arguments for deletion I can see here are "Doesn't pass WP:BAND or WP:GNG but I'm not telling you why" and "There were problems with a previous version of the article" - neither of which really seem to carry much weight. Thrub (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I have reverted my keep request, the promo editors have returned and with borderline stardom I can't continue to request wiki promoting them. Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and I share deeply your concern about the promo editor, that's not a reason for deletion. Especially in an article that you otherwise believe meets our notability requirements. It's cause for requesting article protection, for example, which would prevent newly formed editors from editing it. But not deletion. (Plus -- with input from a number of other editors, they seem to have gone away, and if they return I expect they will be quickly blocked if they continue editing against consensus). Might you reconsider?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as you ask so nicely. I will leave myself as a neutral, I removed the article from my notices when the edit warring returned, good luck. Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wasn't a valid reason for deletion - and if it helps, I'm another editor who now has the article watchlisted and who will revert promo additions and will report if necessary. Thrub (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- the recent promotional editor has just been blocked indefinitely, so that should ameliorate that problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BAND guidelines. Promo editing can be dealt with elsewhere (blocking, semi-p etc) ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (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.