Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wisconsin

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Wisconsin. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Wisconsin|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Wisconsin. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Points of interest related to Wisconsin on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wisconsin/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Christian Anderson (musician)

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

same reason as the many other times this has been deleted - it's complete nonsense sourced to utter garbage in the form of blackhat SEO. Trust'N and various other iterations. TURKEYDICAE🦃 18:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete very PROMO, I can only find PR items . The one source in the article is a student newspaper, not a RS, and it's only one source anyway. We need much more than that for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
@Oaktree b The article you listed is for a completely different artist, not the subject of this AfD. HungryHighway🛣️ 17:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Even less notable then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete based on the near-complete lack of any of the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep The subject charted on a country's national music chart, meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC I want to note that the nominator removed valid, non-PR sources from the article to support the AfD such as 1 2 3 4 5. The existence of potentially PR-based coverage about a subject doesn't invalidate existing valid news coverage. HungryHighway🛣️ 17:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, just because an artist charted on one of the Billboard charts, doesn't automatically mean they're notable. Sugar Tax (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes it does, please check Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria #2. Sandycubs (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Single "Stay (Go)" charted at number 17 on the Billboard Luxembourg Songs.Sandycubs (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment To reviewing admin, all the Delete votes prior to this comment were made when the nominator had removed the sources from the article. The nominator has since been warned by a Wikipedia admin to refrain from disruptive editing, and the sources have been reinstated. In addition, prior Delete votes by @Oaktree b and @Alansohn mention the lack of sources in the article, and should be evaluated with that in mind. Also under WP:MUSICOUTCOMES articles with similar and inferior sourcing survive AfD. HungryHighway🛣️ 07:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
HungryHighway, you refer to sources having been added. I see lots of local coverage and trivial mentions. Which are the in-depth sources that would establish notability? Alansohn (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
@Alansohn 1 2 3 4 These all have a pretty thorough coverage, and provide enough detail to satisfy WP:NOR (which is what Wikipedia guidelines state is the basis of WP:SIGCOV). It states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." By these guidelines and definitions, the subject does have SIGCOV and meets the standards of WP:MUSICBIO. Thank you. HungryHighway🛣️ 20:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Only the second source is about his person. Channel 3000 doesn't like like a RS, Source 4 is a student media. Source 1 isn't about this person, only an act that works with them. I wouldn't use any of these to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Did I link the wrong sources? Source 1 is about the subject and mentions an associated act, it's pretty in-depth about him and his past, it's pretty clearly a RS Wisconsin State Journal. Source 2 is WXOW clearly non-trivial coverage in a RS, not sure what yout hink is non-RS about WISC-TV. Source 4 is student media, however those are allowed for supporting fact, such as attendance at the university. In any case, even assuming that the sources didn't show notability, he still qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO. 3 sources at LEAST are clearly RS, independent, etc. which are in addition to the charting. HungryHighway🛣️ 02:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment still a !delete for me, the new sources don't show notability. Charting is fine, but you need sourcing about the song, it's not a "free pass" to an article if it does chart. Trivial coverage in most sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. my emphasis, you still need decent sourcing ABOUT the music/musician. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It also didn't actually chart under anything covered under N:MUSIC. TURKEYDICAE🦃 17:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Oaktree b There's multiple articles in detail about the song that charted, including a TV interview segment on a news station. There's at least 4 that undisputedly meet WP:GNG and in addition to that, charting adds another criteria so it's eligible under WP:MUSICBIO. At worst, the article should get a more citations needed tag. The main arguments by the nominator fall under WP:ATA as well, it seems like they have some sort of negative personal connection to the subject. HungryHighway🛣️ 20:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
An interview doesn't meet notability requirements, the rest aren't helpful, as explained in my comment above. You've got a bunch of mentions, most in non-RS. Nothing really we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Christian Anderson (musician)

Related Articles