Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Lukas (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Kim Lukas (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)
Alright. I'm going for another deletion discussion here.
As I've said before, I knew about Kim Lukas because, after seeing the video for an Eiffel 65 song, I was seeing what other music videos Blisscomedia did. "All I Really Want" by Kim Lukas happened to be one of them. I was willing enough to expand this article with coverage from reliable sources, but when trying to look for real independent coverage, I came up empty, and felt doing a deletion discussion was necessary.
Now before you say "Keep per WP:MUSICBIO cause she's had two hits in Europe and Canada" or some other bullshit like that, I still stand by on what I said the last time I nominated this. Just because a musical artist had only one big hit (or any amount of hits, actually) does not really affect much of the notability of the subject for Wikipedia. I say this because all the Keep arguments on the last nomination basically said that it met WP:MUSICBIO, without making any mention about WP:GNG. Please note that an article on Wikipedia should not be on an artist whose songs have done well on charts (which we can verify from reliable sources), but we also need secondary sources that go in-depth about Kim Lukas to establish notability (also meeting ALL of the criteria for GNG), and surely the biography sources and interviews cited here, although still reliable, are certainly not secondary or independent.
So I hope you get what I just said. I'll be happy if you find any newspaper or magazine articles about this women, but as of now, GNG wins out. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep, previous nomination closed as keep less than one month ago, no new arguments are being presented here to justify a new nomination by the same editor. SNGs including MUSICBIO are parts of WP:N not less than GNG, and they are intended to work together and not at odds. Apparently failing the GNG does not mean failing WP:N. Arguments of the previous discussion are not "bullshit" nor "GNG wins out", these words make me question about the good faith of the nominator. Sooooo.... replying the rationale of the previous discussion, I would surely had considered deletion for someone who fulfill the MUSICBIO criterium in a borderline way, but the case of an artist who had two singles which were international hits through several European and Canadian charts make me leaning towards a very sure keep. Cavarrone 05:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep per Cavarrone. In the absence of some compelling new basis for this second AfD, it is way too soon to revisit this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous AfD. Obviously of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MAJORITY argument. No need for these type of arguments that are also, what I think, bullshit. Also, could you give some secondary or independent sources you happen to find on this women, making it why you think the article is "obviously of encyclopedia interest", cause saying that her songs have been all over on the charts making her meet WP:MUSICBIO won't. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per previous "bullshit". SL93 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MAJORITY argument. No need for these type of arguments that are also, what I think, bullshit. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could really care less about what you consider bullshit. Fine, since you are so annoyed over something so trivial - This should be kept per WP:MUSICBIO per the hits. Since we are discussing bullshit, I consider your nomination rationale to be bullshit, which is only fair. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That part of the essay (key word - essay) is nonsense anyway. It is contributing to the discussion, because the only other alternative is repeating the same reasoning. SL93 (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- EditorE, with respect, "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". Don't be surprised if people vote "per previous discussion" as you nominated an article just 3 weeks after the previous discussion ended, and without offering any new argument for deletion. You cannot nominate an article continuously until you reach the desired outcome, and on the sole basis of your personal bias against a specific guideline which has a general consensus among wikipedians (if not, it would be just an essay). Side note, excluding the current discussion (that is snowing to keep) and a few others still opened, your AfD stats as nominator are quite discouraging, in a short time 32 articles nominated for deletion, just 7 deleted (and among these 7, 3 were redirect). I suggest you a short wiki-break from nominations for deletion, just the time to familiarize with them and to understand how consensus works in such discussions. My best, Cavarrone 15:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from nominator (WARNING! INCOMING RANT). Okay. First of all, how the freakin' heck was saying it didn't meet GNG, even though I didn't mention about it in when I first nominated this, was not new? Second, the reason why some of the articles i nominated were kept was because no independent sources of those topics were found until one editor cam in the discussion and showed the sources, so I wouldn't say the stats are so much "discouraging" because of it. How about you just not be involved in any deletion discussion I start to see if any editor comes up with such type of a Keep argument like yours, which just to be nice I won't call it "bullshit". Thank you for reading this comment. My best of the best, EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just not explicitly mentioning the word "GNG" in the previous nom, in which the rationale was a complaint about the lack of independent sources regarding the artist, does not really make the two rationales different. Second, I don't care too much about stats, I care more about your frustation, as the frequency you are using the word "bullshit" referring to other opinions is just becoming annoying and reveal your lack of comprehension about notability guidelines. Yes, we don't keep articles just when they meet GNG. Yes, we have other notability guidelines other than GNG. No, keeping an article basing on a notability guideline which still has a large community consensus is not bullshit. You can disagree, but this is not the proper place to discuss guidelines, go to WP:PEOPLE and suggest to use GNG as the only notability guideline for biographies if this is your point. Cavarrone 05:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, you know what, fuck it. I'll just withdraw this nomination if WP:MUSICBIO is enough to keep this article. However, the notability tag I put on the article should still be kept, as the notability of this singer is still questionable either way. I like her stuff, but I just don't feel an article about a singer who's only popular with eurodance sites and blogs is necessary. Also, just to point this out, charting is the least reliable method of gauging notability, and all the keep arguments on this deletion discussion clearly shows that. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this deletion discussion refers to the WP:NSONG guideline, this one to WP:MUSICBIO: when you give an example, you should care to compare two situations which are comparable, as a minimum. The "notability tag" you put in the article is just pointy and retiliatory. Template:Notability says: "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about). When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable, then you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead." Withdrawing an AFD nom just one day before its regular close as keep does not change the fact that the community was already called to judge her notability in two different deletion discussions and largerly expressed an assertion of notability for this artist. Cavarrone 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, using charts to get the subject notable is still a problem with music bios, so screw your crap saying "when you give an example, you should care to compare two situations which are comparable, as a minimum." I'm sure you already know that, I'm assuming. Just please stop making you comments here. I am WITHDRAWING THIS DISCUSSION if the notability tag is disruptive or not. Case closed, Jury dismissed! EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this deletion discussion refers to the WP:NSONG guideline, this one to WP:MUSICBIO: when you give an example, you should care to compare two situations which are comparable, as a minimum. The "notability tag" you put in the article is just pointy and retiliatory. Template:Notability says: "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about). When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable, then you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead." Withdrawing an AFD nom just one day before its regular close as keep does not change the fact that the community was already called to judge her notability in two different deletion discussions and largerly expressed an assertion of notability for this artist. Cavarrone 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, you know what, fuck it. I'll just withdraw this nomination if WP:MUSICBIO is enough to keep this article. However, the notability tag I put on the article should still be kept, as the notability of this singer is still questionable either way. I like her stuff, but I just don't feel an article about a singer who's only popular with eurodance sites and blogs is necessary. Also, just to point this out, charting is the least reliable method of gauging notability, and all the keep arguments on this deletion discussion clearly shows that. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just not explicitly mentioning the word "GNG" in the previous nom, in which the rationale was a complaint about the lack of independent sources regarding the artist, does not really make the two rationales different. Second, I don't care too much about stats, I care more about your frustation, as the frequency you are using the word "bullshit" referring to other opinions is just becoming annoying and reveal your lack of comprehension about notability guidelines. Yes, we don't keep articles just when they meet GNG. Yes, we have other notability guidelines other than GNG. No, keeping an article basing on a notability guideline which still has a large community consensus is not bullshit. You can disagree, but this is not the proper place to discuss guidelines, go to WP:PEOPLE and suggest to use GNG as the only notability guideline for biographies if this is your point. Cavarrone 05:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from nominator (WARNING! INCOMING RANT). Okay. First of all, how the freakin' heck was saying it didn't meet GNG, even though I didn't mention about it in when I first nominated this, was not new? Second, the reason why some of the articles i nominated were kept was because no independent sources of those topics were found until one editor cam in the discussion and showed the sources, so I wouldn't say the stats are so much "discouraging" because of it. How about you just not be involved in any deletion discussion I start to see if any editor comes up with such type of a Keep argument like yours, which just to be nice I won't call it "bullshit". Thank you for reading this comment. My best of the best, EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- EditorE, with respect, "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". Don't be surprised if people vote "per previous discussion" as you nominated an article just 3 weeks after the previous discussion ended, and without offering any new argument for deletion. You cannot nominate an article continuously until you reach the desired outcome, and on the sole basis of your personal bias against a specific guideline which has a general consensus among wikipedians (if not, it would be just an essay). Side note, excluding the current discussion (that is snowing to keep) and a few others still opened, your AfD stats as nominator are quite discouraging, in a short time 32 articles nominated for deletion, just 7 deleted (and among these 7, 3 were redirect). I suggest you a short wiki-break from nominations for deletion, just the time to familiarize with them and to understand how consensus works in such discussions. My best, Cavarrone 15:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MAJORITY argument. No need for these type of arguments that are also, what I think, bullshit. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:18, 7 August 2013 (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.