Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katya Lee

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Lee

edit
Katya Lee (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)

Totally unsourced BLP, could not find evidence of notability which was surprising if her career is accurately reported here. I can confirm that she exists, and find plenty of non-reliable sources for this, but couldn't confirm that she passes notability. Even though it is a totally unreferenced BLP and should therefore be technically deleted, I wanted to give the page a fair chance as the subject definitely sounds like there OUGHT to be sources, but I am surprised that I can't find anything very convincing on quick searches, especially if her CV/media profile is accurately reported here. Perhaps a lot of the best sources are in Russian? I posted a request on Wikiproject Russia with resounding lack of interest/response. Therefore, I am nominating for deletion but am open to withdrawing if reliable sources can be located, as I'm sure there MUST be some out there. Mabalu (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Mabalu (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Катя Ли Фабрика and Катя Ли Hi-Fi for those with Russian. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[1] magazine cover. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Please can someone who reads Russian confirm one way or another? Interviews are of course primary sources, so there would need to be pretty substantial commentary on the subject at the beginning of the interview from the journalist that could be used as a source. I couldn't check this because my work filters have categorised the Russian version of Rolling Stone as a porn site. When I looked up the two notable groups she was in, only one other member of Hi Fi had an article (with what seems a fair amount of sourcing), whilst Fabrika only has articles for 50% of their members/ex-members including this one - none of which seem particularly well sourced. Mabalu (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:BAND point #6: "... is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". She's been a member of Fabrika and Hi-Fi (Russian band) as a vocalist. The guidelines say that this would mean she's notable in an independent capacity, which should prevent any need to analyse any other side of it. If the article needs improving then so be it, but that isn't an issue of notability. KaisaL (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the rule that states that biographies of living people MUST have reliable sources, EVEN if they pass other criteria for notability. I understand - maybe wrongly - that per BLP, we NEED reliable sourcing for the biography, and if no RS exist (which does surprise me) then a page should be deleted or redirected (but then the question is begged - redirect to where? Obviously there are at least two candidates?). Mabalu (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DEL-CONTENT the options there are: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. So yes, deletion is an option, but this could be reduced to a 1-2 sentence stub. Deleting an article because people can't read Russian is a terrible, cultural bias enabling decision. KaisaL (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have, further to this, taken it upon myself to reduce the article to a stub. You're welcome to revert this but given the concern seems to be unsourced material, it's a logical course of action. I'm of the view that AFD should deal in notability, not content concerns. KaisaL (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here is arguing for deletion because they can't read Russian - I gave Wikiproject Russia a whole month in which to confirm her notability, but nobody could be bothered, it seems, and have said several times in this AFD that I would like input from Russian speakers/readers to confirm what the sources in Russian say. Mabalu (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence that she was a "reasonably prominent member". I can fid barely a word about her. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. These look like they might be ok. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those definitely look interesting. Can someone who can read Russian comment please? Mabalu (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NBAND, has rs coverage in Rolling Stone, I don't speak Russian but several of the above refs seem to be news sites and likely rs Atlantic306 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough good refs. Im concerned that Duffbeerforme votes keep on these articles for deletion then does nothing to improve them. Its not on to go around and vote 'keep' on something that takes your fancy and argue for weeks to keep them, and then leave the articles how they were. Like you did on Francis Brabazon with your offline sources arguments. Where are they? SaintAviator lets talk 21:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADHOM, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:HOUND. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a prerequisite of AFD to work on the article. KaisaL (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
: This might be shocking, but nominators and delete voters can also add the references found during an AFD to the article in question Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per WP:BAND point #6; if the criteria is wrong, then suggest changing that. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Belling the cat, anyone? You know, if you would all stop arguing about who should or shouldn't add these new cites and sources, and someone would just add them already, then I would probably have withdrawn this nom sooner. But as nobody seems to want to lift a finger to do it, and I don't trust myself to do it properly, well, here we are... by all means carry on squabbling. Mabalu (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, pointy much. So you want the article deleted because you think it's WP:UGLY and don't want to lift a finger to bell the cat? Even though you appear to be acknowledging that she it notable. Oh, someone has lifted a finger [7], see, one of the sources from above. Then there is more sources being added. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katya_Lee&oldid=1137966870"