Talk:Afusic

Hi @CNMall41, I hope you will try to fix the issue sooner, without dragging too much. In your 1st revert, you mentioned " Not an official chart. That is like saying Billboard instead of naming the individual billboard chart (some are notable and some are not)" I agree, but this was not the case here. The individual chart name was clearly mentioned along with the source.

In your second revert you stated " These arent even soruced in the chart", again this was not the case here, as these songs were not presented as charted tracks.

If you see any other issue, please mention it, otherwise I would like to request you please self revert your edits, I am tired of overexpalaining simple things to experienced editors like you. After all we all are here to contribute collaboratively, not for the debates or arguments. Zuck28 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The second edit was not sourced. The songs listed were not even cited in the discography chart on the page. That's your clarification. And no, Official Charts is a website, not an official chart. That's my contention and at this point, your bludgeoning and now ANI filing has me not willing to engage until the ANI is closed. In the meantime, will be happy to engage at the AfD since this discussion could be irrelevant once deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The official charts company is widely used on Wikipedia as a chart, this is a very new thing you declared it just a website here. And the second edit might be unsourced but your editing summary was misleading. Filing ANI, was your suggestion, and the AFD is also your decision. Zuck28 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@CNMall41, Official Charts Company is a reliable source per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE and multiple discussions at RSN. The citation shows a peak position of 20 on their Video Streaming Chart. This absolutely supports the claim that Pal Pal...peaked at 20 on the Official Video Charts by the Official Charts Company. Sure, Zuck28 could have linked to the actual chart instead, but it would have been redundant. It's not like we only accept charts as citations. A prose description of the chart or even an image, if reliably sourced, would have been just as acceptable. Woodroar (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood and thanks. My contention is that it is not a national chart that we would use to evaluate notability. The chart in fact is not notable. Similar to how we would not include non-notable awards, I see no reason to include non-notable charting positions, especially when they are used in an attempt to claim notability. I have no issue with using the source to support the claim, but I have an issue with using the claim itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Your contention could be anything, but you can not removed well sourced information just because of your assumption. You are just talking about anything, who said that it was used in an attempt to claim notability? The article is clearly notable already as per Wp: NSINGER. But that is a different topic, we are talking about the unnecessary removal of the sourced content. Just because you nominated the article wrongly for AFD, to justify the nomination, you removed well-sourced data and now declared a reliable source and notable chart as just a website. This is not a competition or something where you need to take things personal, we all make mistakes and it is okay to accept them and not to just repeatedly argue with multiple "contentions" just to prove yourself "right". Zuck28 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Zuck28 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say to you at this point. I am trying to engage you in good faith, yet you initially failed to do so, opened a ANI report on me, and now insult me and make accusations of bad faith nominations. Please take a breath and assume good faith. I am afraid if you persist in this manner, we will wind up back at ANI for the boomerang that was suggested. So please, I beg you, discuss without condescension. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not an insult. Please don’t take discussions personally. Zuck28 (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Final warning as frankly you have been given too much rope:

• "You are just talking about anything" - No, I am citing guidelines and my interpretation of them.
• "to justify the nomination" - My contention for the AfD is in the AfD discussion. I made the nomination prior to the removal. Also note I did two removals, one of which was for completely unsourced content. There is nothing I need to do to "justify" anything outside of what I stated in the nomination. See WP:SATISFY.
• "not a competition or something where you need to take things personal", I don't take anything personal on Wikipedia.
• " we all make mistakes and it is okay to accept them and not to just repeatedly argue with multiple "contentions" just to prove yourself "right" - This is where we part ways. You are continuing to accuse me of bad faith conduct despite the ANI results. Not sure what else to do other than go back to ANI. So, just stop!--CNMall41 (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You are avoiding the main topic of the discussion, the removal of well-sourced content, and the misleading edit summary, you provided a clarification that you meant the discography table by the word "chart", fair enough, it could be added back again with a source. Now the removal of the official chart-topping thing, you mentioned your contention and notability stuff which is not relevant here, and as you said " I have no issue with using the source to support the claim", then what is stopping you from undoing your reverts? It is very simple, the information was sourced and should not be removed, there is no additional claim, motive or anything.

Notability could be discussed at AFD, but what is the point of not including well-sourced information?

As @Woodroar stated it very clearly "Official Charts Company is a reliable source per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE and multiple discussions at RSN. The citation shows a peak position of 20 on their Video Streaming Chart. This absolutely supports the claim that Pal Pal...peaked at 20 on the Official Video Charts by the Official Charts Company." and you also claimed that you have no issue with using the source to support the claim, I think this discussion already reached a consensus to include the removed content, and should be closed now without any further debate. Zuck28 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd agree that the chart isn't notable. (Although I'd suggest a word like "significant", to avoid confusion with WP:N.) Official Charts Company is partially owned by the British Phonographic Industry and it publishes the UK's record charts, as outlined at WP:CHARTS. These are official UK charts.

Now I could see an argument that WP:SINGER, criteria 2, wouldn't apply because this is a "Video Streaming" chart and the criteria says "single or album" chart. But that would only mean we couldn't use the source for that claim. It could still be used for general claims in the article, however. It might even be suitable for a GNG claim, although I'd consider it a trivial source for that. I could even see an argument for it supporting SINGER, criteria 11. The single is clearly in rotation to appear on the UK's charts, and "rotation" links to Rotation (music), which includes streaming and music videos. Maybe that's a stretch, though.

I should mention that I personally don't have an opinion on whether or not the artist meets our notability requirements. The source assessment table in the AfD suggests no. I just saw the ANI discussion and wanted to give my opinion on this specific edit war, that's all. Woodroar (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Woodroar, thank you for your attention and comment. I have removed the word "significant" from the article. And there are multiple chart rankings including topping the Asian Music Charts, the Official Singles Chart, the Official Hip Hop and R&B Singles Chart in addition to the Official Video Streaming Chart, which I have now included in the article along with the reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Zuck, you do not have consensus and are now WP:BLUDGEONING the content. I would ask you kindly to self-revert. Once you do, we can continue the discussion. I have a reply for Woodroar but until you follow guidelines it makes no sense to engage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@CNMall41, you said you do not have an issue with using the source to support the claim, yet you are again asking to self-revert. I sincerely want to understand which policy prohibits editors to update any article just because some part of the content is objected by any other editor. I don't believe there's anything which could be considered as disputed or controversial. Do you want to say that I should not continue editing the article until the discussion is closed? Zuck28 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I stated I have no issue with the source. I have an issue with the claim itself. The charts you are trying to introduce are not significant to establish notability. Regardless of your understanding, you are violating WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. The ANI thread was re-opened based on my request. If you do not self-revert and adhere to ONUS to get consensus, I have no other choice to report this and other conduct. You cannot bludgeon your preferred version (and worse) onto a page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What sentence or paragraph is disputed and which part of the article says that "this part is significant to establish notability."

Also, which chart do you think is non notable, there are multiple chart records.

And, again I am asking, if you have an objection to some part of the content, does that mean I should not contribute to the article at all? Zuck28 (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I am unsure if it is a WP:CIR issue or a stalling one, but the content you restored that was under discussion needs removed. In fact, any chart that isn't significant or notable needs to be removed. Look at other musicians such as here and you will see that charts which are not notable are not included. Can you imagine if we added all the charts that were not notable? --CNMall41 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the ongoing ANI discussion, I am stepping back from editing and discussion on this article until it is resolved. Zuck28 (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

So you would rather me add to the ANI report about your editing conduct instead of self-reverting and following ONUS? --CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Moving this from ANI: The original version of the rticle -- which is by someone else, User:Mubashiir Channa -- appears to have been AI-generated (many WP:AISIGNS -- general promotional tone, the "maintains an active social media presence" AI tic, etc). Some of that text is still in the article. so anything cited to any of the sources there is suspect and needs to be carefully checked, if not outright removed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)