Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Sartorius

Jacob Sartorius

Jacob Sartorius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

nonnotable singer. Only promotional babble in references. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I promoted this article from AfC, based on the discussion there. Singer has appeared on Billboard Hot 100 chart, which STRONGLY suggests notability. Need for article improvement is not an appropriate deletion criteria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, per 78.26; passes WP:MUSIC. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep He passes WP:MUSIC with his single on the Top 100. Improvement doesn't equal deletion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep International chart success is an iron standard for notability. Chubbles (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Meets Wikipedia's WP:MUSIC criteria. Lots of hits in Google news.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I created this page because of Jacob Sartorius' Notability and association with notable companies and enterprises, such as Vine, musical.ly, Billboard Hot 100, United Talent Agency. This page meets Wikipedia's standards and policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose Sartorius (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Rose Sartorius stop claiming false WP:OWNERSHIP of Jacob Sartorius. I added a majority of the (sourced) information and citations [1] [2] and submitted the article for review [3]. Here are some of your edits, not a single citation used. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] And the first edit was actually by "Ivyarrow"[13], so neither of us actually "created" or started the page, but one did make much more significant contributions. I LOVE YOU JACOB SARTORIUS XOXOXO (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep This person is sufficiently notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Hello, significant contributor here. I added a majority of the information and references to the article and submitted it at Articles for creation. SwisterTwister declined it and I agree with his decision. Someone better not claim I'm breaking one or more of your precious policies by exercising my right to ¡vote!
• Keep as this individual is notable - in fact, his single recently entered the Billboard Hot 100. --Zero^talk 14:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

So Delete and trout 78.26 for doing some uncalled for "Ignore all rules" type action by moving this to mainspace [14] [15]. This at best belongs in draftspace for now. Even if you do think this is notable, can you at least acknowledge the poor state of the article? I know you can always "improve it"(sometimes that leads to an incomprehensible TLDR mess anyways) but It's not worth digging up more information and defending. Keeping it up will only attract, vandalism, misinformation, and good-faithed, but uncited maybe even promotional looking edits from fans. Defiantly not appropriate to have for a BLP on a high profile 13 year old nor appropriate to have on any other reputable "encyclopedia". I suggest we draft this for one year [remember we have no deadlines and its not like were getting paid, well some of us are :) ], he should be more clearly notable by then, and we might not be left with such a type of article that makes us the laughing stock of real encyclopedias.

The article has not had enough significant, reliable, and independent coverage to justify an article. Most Google News sources are blog/gossip/drama type sites. From independent reliable sources most are mentions. Only "significant coverage" I could find are two short paragraphs in a promotional blog type post. [16] Sites like that often make posts like that that are more meant to promote the subject rather than to give actual information in a way that satisfies our guidelines. [17] which is not really about him. And inclusion in two sources that are barley above a passing mention [18] [19] (2 sentences each). The short promotional biographies on allmusic, itunes, etc don't count, and they are all the same and written by Rovi. I think their label pays Rovi or there is some sort of deal then someone writes it then it get put on sites like billboard, itunes, etc. I don't know just guessing. This source is not independent. [20] This 7 sentence press release-like source barely has anything, what unique information from it would you add to the article? [21] Disregard the comments I made on the talkpage in support of having an article, the actions of some people here have made me change my mind. I once saw someone say that you only need two good sources to make an article, so far Jacob Sartorius has none.

TLDR-these are the two best sources [22] [23] and they are both crap. And just beacue a person meets some magical inclusion criteria ("notability guideline") does mean they are worth have a page for. Whether its some bloke who played in a few professional matches, some kid got on some chart that doesnt really mean much until you get until the top 40 or so, or some "royal baby" is born conceived as if it were most holy baby Jesus Himself. And BTW, why dont we see anybody tripping over getting pages for the tens of thousands of children of African Kings? Is this the real White privilege? I LOVE YOU JACOB SARTORIUS XOXOXO (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)