Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larkin Grimm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 No Consensus to Delete, defaulting to Keep. Disagreement over whether the sources are sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larkin Grimm[edit]
- Larkin Grimm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable musician. Not signed by a major label or established independent. No songs or albums on any recognized chart. Extremely difficult to verify references as only two are in English, and one of them is here record label. Fails WP:MUSIC on several counts. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Machine translations of the non-English sources are listed below.
- PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The references should not be hidden away on the talk page. Even so, the mentions of her are insignificant and/or trivial — one article only mentions her in passing, and the longest is about three paragraphs (with a somewhat laughable translation attempt by Google). The Yale Daily News article has her name attributed to one brief quote only and doesn't even mention her work — you wouldn't even know she's a musician by this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Reallyhick, if you read the guidelines, they clearly say that machine translations shouldn't be in article space. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The references should not be hidden away on the talk page. Even so, the mentions of her are insignificant and/or trivial — one article only mentions her in passing, and the longest is about three paragraphs (with a somewhat laughable translation attempt by Google). The Yale Daily News article has her name attributed to one brief quote only and doesn't even mention her work — you wouldn't even know she's a musician by this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Sources so far arent that verifiable, so notability is yet to be established. --neon white talk 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -There are 5 independent sources cited, and between them, I think it's fairly obvious there is significant coverage, so the topic is sufficiently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from WNYC which alone is not that good of a source, none of them are that verifiable or have non-trivial and significant content. --neon white talk 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have to, there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources, not significant coverage in each reliable source. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're twisting words here. Trivial mentions in multiple sources does not equal significant coverage. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the notability guideline, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're trying to blow this concept by us: A bunch of trivial mentions is the same as one non-trivial one? That just flies in the face of common sense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dutch language reference is a full length article, which isn't a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anyone who would call five paragraphs a "full-length article." And I think that's the longest of the bunch. I'm a bit surprised that an editor/admin with your extensive experience is trying to do this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, a five paragraph article, which clearly isn't a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be but the site doesnt appear to be a very reliable source. --neon white talk 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying it doesn't appear to be a very reliable source doesn't really give any more information to go on. What is it that makes it unreliable as a source to you? --SSBohio 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be but the site doesnt appear to be a very reliable source. --neon white talk 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, a five paragraph article, which clearly isn't a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anyone who would call five paragraphs a "full-length article." And I think that's the longest of the bunch. I'm a bit surprised that an editor/admin with your extensive experience is trying to do this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dutch language reference is a full length article, which isn't a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're trying to blow this concept by us: A bunch of trivial mentions is the same as one non-trivial one? That just flies in the face of common sense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the notability guideline, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're twisting words here. Trivial mentions in multiple sources does not equal significant coverage. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from WNYC which alone is not that good of a source, none of them are that verifiable or have non-trivial and significant content. --neon white talk 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidence of notability has been provided. Is she very notable? It doesn't seem so. Does she have to be? No. We're in no danger of running out of electrons any time soon, so we can have this article. --SSBohio 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She has to be notable according to guidelines. Wikpedia does not need an article on everything and everyone regardless of it's potential to have such. --neon white talk 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I said, evidence of notability has been provided. She does not need to be very notable to have an article about her. Repeating that she isn't does nothing to advance the discussion. She appears to be notable to me. What are your specific points refuting the notability conferred by the coverage received? --SSBohio 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She has to be notable according to guidelines. Wikpedia does not need an article on everything and everyone regardless of it's potential to have such. --neon white talk 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Artist has published two albums, has had some critical reviews. WNYC has one of the largest audiences in the country. Mattnad (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- audience size of a source has no relevance to the fact that the source is a small paragraph and is not significant coverage. --neon white talk 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr....how to respond....to this.... OK. Small paragraph or not, audience size is an important element in notability. The fact that WNYC thinks she is notable enough, and has a gigantic audience says something about the importance of that paragraph. I think this is an instance where size (of audience) does matter. Mattnad (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- audience size of a source has no relevance to the fact that the source is a small paragraph and is not significant coverage. --neon white talk 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable fails WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.216.154 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 209.168.216.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - since wikipedia isn't paper, the notability bar is set pretty low. There is coverage from multiple sources, though not in English. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Uuser:Neonwhite's response above about the old "Wikipedia isn't paper" argument. The only one of the 12 criteria at WP:MUSIC that is even in question is the first, which is non-trivial coverage by independent sources. Of course, I feel she has not even met that; others differ, which is why we're here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the prior discussion, and the sources, though not abundant are sufficient. So yes, we do differ perhaps on the interpretation, but it's still "keep" for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Realkyhick, Wikipedia isn't paper already extsts as a link to What Wikipedia is not. It says: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. Also, the Wiki is not paper page at meta says that because Wikipedia is not paper, it can provide summaries of all subjects of interest. You reduced Whpq's contribution to Wikipedia should be about everything, then refuted that distorted image of what the editor wrote; It's a form of straw man argument. Whpq has asserted that the article crosses the notability bar, not that there isn't one. --SSBohio 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't reduce his comments to WP:EVERYTHING, I merely commented on a portion of what he said. I didn't comment on notability because that's a judgment call on which we basically agree to disagree. Don't blow it up into anything more than it is. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Realkyhick, Wikipedia isn't paper already extsts as a link to What Wikipedia is not. It says: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. Also, the Wiki is not paper page at meta says that because Wikipedia is not paper, it can provide summaries of all subjects of interest. You reduced Whpq's contribution to Wikipedia should be about everything, then refuted that distorted image of what the editor wrote; It's a form of straw man argument. Whpq has asserted that the article crosses the notability bar, not that there isn't one. --SSBohio 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the prior discussion, and the sources, though not abundant are sufficient. So yes, we do differ perhaps on the interpretation, but it's still "keep" for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (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.