Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiggo

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 March 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Although mentioned in several sources, the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) requires them to be the subject of reliable coverage, and that coverage cannot be self-published/self-edited; otherwise, they appear to be covered incidentally to a wider story (e.g., a music competition) or incidentally as individuals. As for coverage in a music competition, the musician notability requirements (WP:MUSIC) would require them to place in the competition, not simply be bad enough to be mentioned as being bad—again, only incidentally to a story with wider coverage. Furthermore, WP:MUSIC would require at the very least two albums released under a major label, not one, and simply being signed to a label (as several of the sources cover) is also insufficient to meet MUSIC, as are non-charting, non-rotating singles. slakr^\ talk / 22:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiggo[edit]

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

There is no WP:notability for the pair, at best this should be split into two articles, one for each sister, although I don't think they meet the standards of notability either. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The twins are notable together only Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mosfetfaser, your arguments here were particularly WP:BIASED and not particularly persuasive. Your statment "The twins are notable together only" is also not particualrly persuasive, would you care to back it up with a proof? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? there are more than enuf wp:rs about the twins to support keep on wiki where the standards for inclusion are pretty low , see wp:gng There is an attitude, call it revenge deletion here , where anon users here seem to hate any editing by real life people attempting to improve their bios and if they catch on to that the wiki users attack and if possible the anon wiki users delete the article altogether. WP:BIASED , I am not biased at all , considering wiki's low standard for inclusion I see enough wp:notability to keep an article about the twins. Mosfetfaser (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of GNG, that's why I !voted to delete below. Can you explain which references you consider to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" please? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mosfetfaser please always assume good faith and show some appreciations on the contributions of other editors. The article does meet the deletion criteria, except that perhaps it can be kept to serve as an offset to the biased Romanian Indiggo wiki article as the sole purpose. Note that the page has been exploited by the twins to promote their publicity for 5 years(!) and several editors have been constantly removing the fake or unsourced info added by the twins - this isn't funny and I bet no contributor would love to do so. If the article had been deleted in the first place, our editors' efforts wouldn't have been wasted on the article. Deleting it now is very late and lots of efforts have already been spent on making it less biased, calling the deletion proposal by the editors "revenge deletion" sounds very offending as least to me. BigCat82 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but partial deletion: removal of all the unsourced and promos added by the twins and their puppets from the page history. I just did a cleanup on the article as per talk page consensus. I have removed all the unsourced, fake and self-promotional content, and rewritten some to accurately reflect the few reliable sources. Although the twins are relatively unknown to the public and the page receives fewer than 30 view counts per day, keeping this article can prevent future recreation of the same article in promotional language by their suspected sock puppets like what Paul Lewis Smith did before. Also the twins may get more popular in the future. BigCat82 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as and FYI and with no agreement or disagreement with your stament, pages can be WP:SALTed to provent recreation issues. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info. I just found that the Romanian wiki page on Indiggo exists and needless to say the page is flooded with all unsourced promos (the Romanian wikipedia standards are probably different than the English site here). Maintaining a neutral, unbiased and accurate article about the twins here in the English site is not a bad idea. BigCat82 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BigCat, if they meet requirements in the future, then an article can be written in the future. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information again. I still have a lot to learn here. Now my only reason to keep it is that having our accurate and unbiased English version for readers' reference to offset the Romanian biased version is better than having only the Romanian biased version. Although the twins are so unpopular, we can't exclude the possibility that a few readers genuinely need accurate information about them. If my opinion is invalid as per Wikipedia standards, I will change my vote to Delete and have no further opinion. BigCat82 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the twins only need to be notable. Not famous. And not notable for being popular -- it is equally significant if they are noted for being unpopular, as with the news articles we have here panning their singing performance, or reflecting Morgan doing that.Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Check the refs carefully - they are either non-RS, or are trivial mentions. I'll happily change my !vote if more appropriate references (in whatever language) can be shown. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. It's admirable to try to counteract other sites' bias, but that doesn't trump the issue of whether the topic is actually notable. Absolutely a good idea (if one is able) to try to fix a poor article on another site, but their criteria for content, tone, or topic-inclusion are not in scope here. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 1) They have entries on discogs and last.fm, so a comprehensive encyclopedia should include them. 2) Their debacle on America's Got Talent got widely reported (Huffington Post, The New York Times, Today (NBC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't beleive that discogs or last.fm are notable alone per WP:MUSICBIO. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that those two in combination and taken together with more serious sources support arguing in favour of retaining this article. Also, the essay Wikipedia:Suggested sources takes a more positive view of last.fm. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That essay looks pretty questionable. Last.FM definitely does not meet the criteria for identifying reliable sources: artist bios are user-editable, and there is an artist profile page for any text string in the "artist" tag of a track played by a user with the Last.FM plugin running. There is absolutely no vetting. — Gwalla | Talk 23:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Michael Bednarek, and RS coverage that meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've fully protected the article as it's currently an edit war site. No inference on the merits of the current version, nor on this AfD. Ged UK 13:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt The references either fail the "Significant coverage" or the "Reliable" part of the GNG. There are sources that would work for mentioning them in another article, but nothing that demonstrates notability for a stand-alone article. Salting it is necessary due to the continued socking/meating and promotion by the Indiggo girls "and/or their fans". Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Only coverage is trivial, others not reliable. mikeman67 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article as it was didn't reflect much of the RS coverage that is out there. And some of the media coverage is difficult to parse -- you have to deal with different spellings of the various names, and check the .ro references (which I've barely done), which are many (one has to separate the RSs from the non-RSs there). But they do seem to satisfy GNG to me.

In addition, they have multiple elements of what we look for -- their coverage is not strictly local, it is for a number of different accomplishments (though none by itself is sufficient IMHO), they seem to be one of the better musical acts from Romania, they have released music on the major SONY record label, they are signed to a major label with a roster of performers who are notable, they have performed music for a work of media that is notable.

Again -- each by itself is short of meeting the secondary criteria (though of course all they have to do is meet GNG), but to me all together are sufficient ... even had they not met GNG. Basically, the whole purpose of our notability rules is met -- these aren't garage band nobodies, who the media does not know. But singers who have appeared on a Kanye West album, been produced by SONY, and are signed to a major label, with the other indicia of notability to boot.Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2014 (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.