Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Sharp (2nd nomination)

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. A two year old AfD is not a reason not to revisit this, and precedent in either direction is not binding. However, consensus, especially with the addition of the museum source seems clear that Sharp meets NMUSIC. Whether or not that is sufficient in lieu of GNG is a meta conversation for another venue. Star Mississippi 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Sharp

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As I pointed out in the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus":

Searching "Rosemary Sharp" + "Canyon Creek" gave no results on Google Books or Newspapers.com.
"Rosemary Sharp" + any of her singles gave no results on Newspapers.com.
The only hits for "Rosemary Sharp" + "If You're Gonna Tell Me Lies" on Google Books are the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs books, which verify the Billboard chart positions and no more.
The only results for "Rosemary Sharp" + any of her song titles on americanradiohistory.com are just the chart listings from Billboard and RPM, except for one picture of her with a caption, and one passing mention of a radio program director giving approval to the single. No reviews of her singles were ever published as far as RPM and Billboard are concerned.

The people who said "keep" in the last AFD were either blindly saying "keep because charted single = notable", or "keep because there might possibly maybe be sources we don't know about yet". Neither is a valid argument.

"Charted single = automatically notable" has been contradicted in several AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Born (rapper), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Wolf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Sanz was also deleted despite that artist having three charted singles, simply because the lack of sourcing overrode that. Lisa Shaffer also charted, but her article was recently deleted via PROD due to my thoroughly detailed explanation of the lack of sources.

"There might be sources" is entirely WP:BURDEN. Her singles charted as high as #9 on the RPM charts, yet RPM didn't see fit to mention anything about her. Literally the only info we even have is that she charted and that she was from Fort Worth, both of which are sourced solely to the Joel Whitburn book -- and guess what, Brad Wolf, Victor Sanz, and Waycross are in that book too because that book gathers everyone who ever charted. Worldradiohistory.com is a site full of old music magazines from the time in which she charted, but every result is merely the chart itself, or an individual stations list of songs they added that week. And none of that contributes to WP:GNG. Attempts to poke the "keep" crowd in the last AFD about the lack of sourcing were mostly shrugged off.

(I am curious as to how a song that only got to #67 in the US got to #9 in Canada, especially given that the songs themselves don't seem to meet CanCon laws...)

tl;dr: while she does meet WP:BAND as a charted artist, that is not an ironclad reason to keep the article if the sourcing isn't there (especially given the presence of the AFDs I just cited), and it's patently obvious that the sourcing isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator nominated this for deletion two years ago and did not like the result; this is flogging a dead horse and is abuse of process. (So, for that matter, is the "precedent" TPH cites of uncontested PRODs he has recently nominated.) Sharp (still) meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I nominated it again because the last one was "no consensus" two years ago. You're allowed to do that on "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, meeting WP:NMUSIC is not the issue. Meeting WP:GNG is. There are NO sources anywhere. I couldn't find any, no one else could find any, and when asked, everyone just shrugged it off and allowed the article to stay unsourced. Did you find sources I didn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD closed no-consensus largely because of WP:BLUDGEONing of people who correctly point out that meeting WP:MUSIC with WP:V information is sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is not necessary to also meet WP:GNG; WP:MUSIC's bullet 1 is the GNG, and then there are 11 other ways to meet the threshold. (The claim that there are no sources is a blatant and irresponsible falsehood, as the article itself is sourced, and has been for the past two years.) There's no constructive utility in raising from the dead this two-year-old AfD discussion; the right place would be an RfC if you wanted to settle the point, but instead we have a scenario where the same procedure is being repeated, with the exact same circumstances holding, in hopes of a different outcome based on different participants. It's bad-faith. I am not interested in rehashing at length this discussion, and anyway, I don't have the bandwidth to respond to ten messages a day here, but I'll ping everyone else who participated in the last AfD in case they want to repeat themselves: @Walter Görlitz: @PK650: @Adamant1: @Samboy: @Mr. Vernon: @78.26: Chubbles (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. If there were no sources two years ago, and if none were found in the interim, then it is entirely appropriate to nominate the article for deletion (and delete it) now. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Lisa Shaffer also charted, but her article was recently deleted via PROD due to my thoroughly detailed explanation of the lack of sources." I don't get involved with popular music articles but this appears like an abuse of prod, if the subject meets a relevant subject guideline and taking the article to AfD might be expected to generate some interest in retaining. Merely having been deleted via prod says little or nothing about the community's view, as so few editors patrol proposed deletions and so many articles have been bulk nominated recently. (@Liz: as deleting admin.) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So even when there are literally zero sources, the article should be kept anyway because...? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I have no opinion on whether that article should or should not exist, as I don't know the first thing about popular music. However prod should only be used for entirely non-controversial deletions. If there's a conflict between what a subject-specific guideline states and the GNG then that's inherently something that deserves wider community exposure than just the prod queue. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why WP:NMUSIC says that we should keep pretty much anything that charts is to avoid long contentious discussions like this one. She passes WP:NMUSIC because she had four singles that charted on Billboard. She is hardly a garage band. This is a simple, objective standard which should be followed. This was true in 2020, and this remains true in 2022. Samboy (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And are WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:V then? We can just ignore sources now? Cool, I didn't know that. I'll go write an article about my cat now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense. We don’t have a notability guideline for pets, so WP:GNG applies in the case of my pet cat having a Wikipedia article. We do, on the other hand, have a notability guideline for music artists, so it’s a different ball of wax. I am also concerned about TenPoundHammer’s behavior here; looking at their block history they have a history of violating Wikipedia’s harassment policy, and, yes, concerning the lack of tangible content in their reply, I do feel harassed by their reply to my vote here, and politely ask them to stop. Samboy (talk)

Pinging @Sammi Brie: @ChrisTofu11961: @Caldorwards4: @Martin4647: @Jax 0677: for their expertise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the last AfD for this artist, I found some precedents: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosemary_Sharp, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Spurs, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waycross_(band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet Black Stare, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jive Jones. One keep, one redirect, one delete, and two no consensus. Precedent leans more towards “keep” or “no consensus” than for “delete”. Samboy (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Waycross, Jet Black Stare, Brad Wolf, Victor Sanz, and New Born (rapper) combined show more of a consensus to delete. Waycross probably would have also been a "delete" had their song not been covered by other artists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samboy's argument is correct. The GNG applies to most pages. Some pages are covered by SNGs—subject-specific notability guidelines. While there is a long-term tendency in recent years away from SNGs or to stronger SNGs (something I'm familiar with from the NMEDIA and NTV RfCs), NMUSIC is still a guideline. NMUSIC prescribes that, if the artist charted once in country, they meet NMUSIC. Rosemary Sharp charted four times. Do I agree that she would likely fail the GNG? Yes. My own searching is turning up next to nothing; however, we are talking about an artist who charted in 1987, so even without coverage in Radio & Records or the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (or the Dallas Morning News, which I also can cross-check against), we could be missing some or other key publication. SNGs should generally harmonize or correlate with the GNG, though there are places where they diverge for specific and valid reasons. Here, the divergence between the SNG and the GNG makes this article stand up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're hedging your bets on the possibility that there might maybe possibly maybe be some sources? You don't know where they are, but you think if you just wish hard enough they'll pop out of nowhere? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or delete - On one hand, there are many charts. On the other hand, an article should have the potential to be substantive, should it not? --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRESERVE, which is policy, not a guideline. This artist charted in multiple countries, reaching the top ten of one nation's chart. This meets NMUSIC #2 (vetted guideline, not policy) by a mile. A newspapers.com search also reveals she meets NMUSIC #11, as her videos were scheduled in rotation on the The Nashville Network at the time of her popularity. It is not correct to say there are no sources. There are sources, they are in the article. Importantly, WP:V is met for every part of the article. The problem is that none of the sources are in-depth coverage, although it could be argued that Whitburn's extensive listings are more than a passing mention. Because of the lack of in-depth sourcing, the preferred solution would be to merge the content somewhere. The problem is that I can't think of an appropriate place to merge to. The information is of encyclopedic value because of the significant accomplishments of this artist. Someone doing musicological or music history research, or a vinyl collector could easily run across the art (musical recordings) of this artist and seek information. We can't give them much, but what we have to offer is better than nothing. Therefore the encyclopedia is better containing this information, and loses some value were it to be outright deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 78.26, and I added a source that allows us to point readers to the National Museum of American History, which includes one of her singles in its collection and further supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if one of her songs is included as part of the National Museum of American History, then that is enough reason to keep it in my opinion. Also she had several charting singles. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sammi Brie and 78.26. PK650 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2022 (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.