Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolene (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 delete. I relisted this a week ago because the discussion seemed still ongoing. Apparently that was not the case as there has been no more comments. G4 is not really applicable after an AfD a decade ago. The "delete" !votes have somewhat stronger arguments than the "keep" !votes. The thing that clinches the deal is the promotional nature of the article (see also WP:TNT). I will also salt the article. However, several editors argue that this person may meet NMUSIC. Hence, there is no prejudice to creating a bio in draft space and if it passes muster, any admin can move it to article space. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolene

Lolene (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)

Shameless serial self-promotion for over a decade! full of weasley hyperbole fails GNG. previously deleted with 5Ds, 4 speedys, nom and no keep/support. non notable musician. has not charted in a country's chart as per WP:Music (did have one song in a niche genre-chart) Rayman60 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: as WP:G4. Multiple recreations so WP:SALT applies. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: although most of the article is unsourced promotion and should be removed, we must be honest and recognise that she has had two songs chart on Billboard's Dance Club Play chart [1]. I know it's not the Hot 100, but charting on one of the specialist charts often been considered enough to pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1) charting is subjective and not automatic notability. 2) take the promotional prose away and the article has nothing. Trillfendi (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The artist is notable enough for Wikipedia verifiability and notability guidelines since she charted onto the Billboard List back in '09. Although it can be seen as subjective, it is in fact enough as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. MalibuKing113 (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral tone but the subject is notable in terms of WP:NMUSIC with charting hits in the US and releases on a major label, namely Capital Records so the article should be kept and salvaged from its present state of promo dirge Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She meet WP:NMUSIC. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Also, a clear case for salting. The text is a lengthy enumeration of trivialities about an artist who, as it happens, did not make it (a comeback may be in the works, though, by the looks of it) yet has concocted her own page in Wikipedia. The only claim to fame is an appearance on a Dance Hits list. Beyond that there is nothing. Brief fame, then possibly, Wikinotability not by a mile. Subject utterly fails WP:NMUSICIAN and I'd challenge anyone who believes otherwise to come forward and present evidence to the contrary, citing the specific criteria met. Generalities don't make it. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She has had two songs chart on Billboard's Dance Club Play chart [2]. I know it's not the Hot 100, but charting on one of the specialist charts often been considered enough to pass notability. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, MyanmarBBQ. This is supposed to be a biography article. The argument about having a record or two charted is not enough for the inclusion of a biography in Wikipedia. When no other information can be presented (under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on verifiability) there is simply not enough for a biography. Tellingly, the contested article is made up of a self-made photo, lots of self-penned personal info, an inappropriate amount of unsourced detail, and a link to a Bristol newspaper with the big news of a local signing a contract with an American record company, part of the thousands of signings made by record companies. (The overwhelming majority of them come to nothing.) Oh and an advertorial in the "populist" RapUp, along with a link to WeArePopSlags, which is an unacceptable source. More chance stands the song than the person. -The Gnome (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2019 (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.