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. Synergy 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Francis

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sage Francis

Contested prod, but I still believe this person fails WP:MUSIC and has also been lacking non-trivial references as far back as March 2007 which speaks for itself. JBsupreme (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C5 for 2 albums on Epitaph Records. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to dispute this one -- merely having two albums released on an indie label is insufficient for WP:BLP if there are no sources to support the biographical content. JBsupreme (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP & WP:PEOPLE are general guidelines. Wikipedia has given certain groups have a more refined set of guidelines to work from, for example WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ATHLETE, WP:ACADEMIC, and of course WP:MUSIC. This person meets the criteria laid out for their specific one, which is WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG. WP:BLP is not a general guideline. It is a NON-NEGOTIABLE POLICY. WP:MUSIC is the guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the article was brought to AfD as failing WP:MUSIC, and it appears that the subject meets the guidelines set forth there, then already we have a reason to keep it. If we're modifying the rationale for deletion as failing WP:BLP, it would be fair to note that policy's note on deletion: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.... Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed." This article may certainly benefit from improvement in sourcing, but with music notability having been (as far as I can tell) satisfied, the next step should be clean-up, not deletion. It's by no means given that improvement is "not possible." -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what Esradekan Gibb said. Shnakepup (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is well-known in the world of spoken word/underground hip-hop, not the biggest genre but certainly not a marginal demographic. If it's an exaggeration to say that the artist is synonymous with that genre, it's not much of one--simply viewing the "What Links Here" link shows how tangled the subject is in this genre. As noted in Underground hip hop, the artist has even seen Billboard 200 success, which isn't altogether common for "underground" artists. I haven't edited WP for a while, but when looking up some album info earlier it simply bewildered me that this is even being considered for deletion. The sources may need clean-up, but deleting this particular article for supposedly being about a non-noteworthy subject would be quite the mistake. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "clean up"? There are no sources cited! JBsupreme (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the sources provided by editors to date have been sparse, as they often are in music-related articles. At worst, this would warrant deletion of unsourced biographical material (though I'd personally recommend posting a banner demanding better sourcing as an intermediate measure). Poorly sourced material is the bane of Wikipedia's existence, but wholesale deletion of the entire article is a rather extreme first step to take. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the ease of finding source material, the AllMusic page[1] on the artist provides a good overview of much of the material on this page. That took me all of half a minute to find, and if I had more invested in this, I'd probably contribute more. The sources are there, certainly. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:56, 23 July 2008 (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.