436:(notability - one of the most common themes for recommending deletion and rightfully so). I will not get into your right to defend yourself as Knowledge (XXG) is not a forum for that (nor is it a forum for agendas). I do not think anyone is accusing you of being anything; however, the point here is that you need to concentrate on finding additional sources and cleaning up the article. Slashme and myself are only two votes but there are many other editors who are going to come along in the next couple of days and weigh in with their opinions as well. The best way to get additional votes is to spend some time cleaning up the article and adding additional reliable sources. This will give editors a clearer view of the articles notability (or lack thereof). While everyone here has the right to cast their vote, it is important to give reasons for your vote. That is what you need to focus on here. Good luck. --
373:- Daniel, thank you for the welcome message on my talk page. I didn't see your above comment when I submitted my vote so there must have been a cross edit. Regardless, my vote is based strictly on my interpretation and understanding of Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines. As deletion discussions do not usually last more than a week from what I have seen, I would suggest taking the time to improve the article. One thing would be to remove some of the wording that would seem promotional to others reading it. As this is an encyclopedia, many people will tend to vote to delete an article based on promotional content. I would also suggest tracking down additional sources and adding them to the article. Sources should meet the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines which you can find at this link
488:
this was just another starlet being puffed by a social media manager. After posting my comment, I checked your edit history, and realized that I was wrong, so I struck my comment out. The reason that the AFD came so quickly after the creation of the article was that I was doing new page patrolling. I didn't delete the comment, because I'd already posted it in my AFD nomination, and didn't want to look as if I was hiding anything. I'm sorry that you were offended by my incorrect assumption, and I'll be more careful in future. --
432:- Thank you, DanielTom. I can say that there are many agendas with editors on Knowledge (XXG) and it is natural to say the first thing that comes to your mind when it appears that you see such. With that in mind, the purpose of "assuming good faith" is to simply assume, even though something may seem like an obvious agenda to you, that the editor who made the recommendation did so after careful consideration. There does not appear to be an agenda with Slashme as the nomination (although I disagree with it)
450:
Thanks much for your advice. Just a brief note to say that even ignoring the (in my opinion) clear notability of the subject, I still strongly believe that the article, as it stands, already has more than enough sources to guarantee that it can and should be kept. I am not saying that it doesn't need
487:
What happened was that I read the article, had never heard of the artist, did a quick search and found very little that seemed to indicate serious notability beyond what I would expect from a typical music reality show contestant. I saw that the page had been deleted once before, so I assumed that
400:
necessary for the nomination to suggest that the article was "a promotion page by an image management company"? I don't think so myself and apparently the nominator agrees with me (given the strikethrough). Anyway, I don't have any problem apologizing (actually I do apologize) if my quick response
307:
I should like to know how exactly a video with over 4,6 millions views on
Youtube does not qualify as a "big hit". Besides, the article presents sources. I hope that other people will add their comments and insights, as I obviously do not think this article should be deleted, and I would certainly
584:
all appear to be the "multiple" needed. Finally, I am not sure what would qualify as "big hits" as he has released numerous songs, many of which are listed in sources such as Reverb Nation and other music sites. I would suggest toning down the promotion a little, but the article would qualify.
409:
notable). In any case, I still have since then been adding a few more sources and info to the article (hopefully I have not been wasting my time). I apologize once again for my tone, but as you can imagine, after creating an article, receiving a notification like that can be distressing. Now I
572:, having "any big hits" is not the only criteria. He would pass #1 simply on the fact that he is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." References including
183:
82:
396:
I did assume good faith, but I also assumed that I have the right to defend my reputation. I hope you agree. And trust me, my comment would have been different if I hadn't assumed good faith. Was it
545:
401:
sounded like I wasn't "assuming good faith"; I had, however, to clarify that I don't have an agenda, and that the strikethrough comment did bother me; indeed, right after I created that article,
324:
136:
377:. Voting "keep" along with your reasoning why goes further than assuming bad faith on the nominator. Just my two cents (which is probably only worth about half a penny). --
177:
405:, I was notified right away that someone had already proposed that it should be deleted, with very poor reasoning in my opinion (as I said, I think Jordan Jansen is
143:
77:
573:
577:
236:
I have to say that I personally find your strikethrough comment very offensive. Even after having created so many pages on
Wikiquote
17:
109:
104:
623:
359:
113:
687:
667:
646:
627:
594:
557:
534:
520:
497:
464:
445:
419:
386:
363:
336:
317:
230:
61:
96:
198:
165:
707:
40:
590:
441:
382:
300:
that someone has accused me of creating a "promotion page". I really hope you were joking. It is true that the
159:
603:
304:
was the first article that I started here on
Knowledge (XXG), but your "speculation" is hardly a good welcome.
155:
703:
586:
437:
378:
57:
36:
451:
any more work: of course it does. I expect future editors will be able to build on it and improve it,
619:
455:
we delete it now, that is. (And that's another obvious reason to oppose the deletion!) Best regards,
355:
205:
683:
642:
516:
460:
415:
313:
191:
100:
660:
503:
Thanks for your attention and explanation. I do appreciate it, and am sorry if I was too harsh.
267:
553:
530:
493:
332:
226:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
702:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
569:
215:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
581:
53:
607:
343:
171:
611:
347:
251:
374:
239:
679:
664:
638:
512:
456:
411:
309:
287:
301:
92:
67:
549:
526:
489:
328:
222:
275:
247:
130:
283:
255:
220:
Seems to be a promotion page by an image management company.(remove speculation)
506:
271:
410:
suggest we focus on the vote, and await for the results. Very truly yours,
291:
243:
279:
606:
and am extremely adverse to Justin Bieber, but it looks like Jordan
259:
582:
Dolly
Magazine (appears on his website so I have not verified it)
696:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
263:
678:
Thanks for your vote. (Is it time to close this AfD?) ~
546:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
126:
122:
118:
190:
83:
Articles for deletion/Jordan Jansen (2nd nomination)
204:
578:Hollywood Life (snippet, but still all about him)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
710:). No further edits should be made to this page.
511:Anyway, no hard feelings from me. Yours truly,
325:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
8:
544:Note: This debate has been included in the
323:Note: This debate has been included in the
637:Thanks for your vote, much appreciated. ~
543:
322:
308:call Jordan Jansen "notable". Regards,
75:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
525:And none from me, of course! ;-] --
509:... yep, now I'm just teasing you.)
78:Articles for deletion/Jordan Jansen
74:
505:(Though I would suggest you watch
434:is based on Knowledge (XXG) policy
24:
346:on the part of the nominator. --
604:I don't like this kind of music
1:
218:: hasn't had any big hits.
727:
688:22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
668:12:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
647:23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
628:23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
595:17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
558:16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
535:08:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
521:21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
498:20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
465:21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
446:20:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
420:19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
387:19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
364:18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
337:16:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
318:17:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
231:16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
62:19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
699:Please do not modify it.
403:just a few seconds later
32:Please do not modify it.
659:, would appear to meet
73:AfDs for this article:
268:Henri de Saint-Simon
342:Daniel, please, do
298:the very first time
238:(see, for example:
48:The result was
690:
649:
568:- If you look at
560:
510:
422:
344:assume good faith
339:
296:, this is indeed
295:
252:William Nicholson
718:
701:
677:
636:
615:
614:Dennis The Tiger
587:FoolMeOnce2Times
504:
438:FoolMeOnce2Times
395:
379:FoolMeOnce2Times
351:
350:Dennis The Tiger
240:Florbela Espanca
237:
209:
208:
194:
146:
134:
116:
34:
726:
725:
721:
720:
719:
717:
716:
715:
714:
708:deletion review
697:
613:
608:makes the grade
349:
288:Seth MacFarlane
214:Patently fails
151:
142:
107:
91:
88:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
724:
722:
713:
712:
693:
692:
691:
672:
671:
663:criteria #1.
653:
652:
651:
650:
631:
630:
597:
562:
561:
540:
539:
538:
537:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
390:
389:
320:
305:
212:
211:
148:
87:
86:
85:
80:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
723:
711:
709:
705:
700:
694:
689:
685:
681:
676:
675:
674:
673:
669:
666:
662:
658:
655:
654:
648:
644:
640:
635:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
609:
605:
601:
598:
596:
592:
588:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
542:
541:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:
518:
514:
508:
502:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
466:
462:
458:
454:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
421:
417:
413:
408:
404:
399:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
345:
341:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
319:
315:
311:
306:
303:
302:Jordan Jansen
299:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:James Rachels
245:
241:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
221:
217:
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
153:Find sources:
149:
145:
141:
138:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:Jordan Jansen
90:
89:
84:
81:
79:
76:
69:
68:Jordan Jansen
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
698:
695:
656:
612:
599:
574:Courier Mail
565:
486:
452:
433:
429:
406:
402:
397:
370:
348:
297:
284:Pope Francis
256:Shelly Kagan
219:
213:
201:
195:
187:
180:
174:
168:
162:
152:
139:
49:
47:
31:
28:
276:T'ao Ch'ien
272:Iron Maiden
178:free images
54:Mark Arsten
704:talk page
680:DanielTom
665:Lankiveil
639:DanielTom
566:Weak Keep
550:• Gene93k
513:DanielTom
457:DanielTom
412:DanielTom
329:• Gene93k
310:DanielTom
37:talk page
706:or in a
661:WP:MUSIC
467:+ tweaks
292:Catiline
244:Cryonics
137:View log
39:or in a
570:WP:BAND
527:Slashme
490:Slashme
430:Comment
407:clearly
371:Comment
294:, etc.)
280:I Ching
223:Slashme
216:WP:BAND
184:WP refs
172:scholar
110:protect
105:history
580:, and
453:unless
398:really
156:Google
114:delete
624:stuff
375:WP:RS
360:stuff
260:Piano
199:JSTOR
160:books
144:Stats
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
684:talk
657:Keep
643:talk
622:and
620:Rawr
610:. --
600:Keep
591:talk
554:talk
531:talk
517:talk
507:this
494:talk
461:talk
442:talk
416:talk
383:talk
358:and
356:Rawr
333:talk
314:talk
227:talk
192:FENS
166:news
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
58:talk
50:keep
264:Psy
206:TWL
135:– (
686:)
645:)
626:)
602:.
593:)
585:--
576:,
556:)
548:.
533:)
519:)
496:)
463:)
444:)
418:)
385:)
362:)
335:)
327:.
316:)
290:;
286:;
282:;
278:;
274:;
270:;
266:;
262:;
258:;
254:;
250:;
246:;
242:;
229:)
186:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
60:)
52:.
682:(
670:.
641:(
618:(
589:(
552:(
529:(
515:(
492:(
459:(
440:(
414:(
381:(
354:(
331:(
312:(
225:(
210:)
202:·
196:·
188:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
158:(
150:(
147:)
140:·
133:)
95:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.