Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille and Kennerly Kitt

Add links
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 keep. LFaraone 02:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camille and Kennerly Kitt[edit]

Camille and Kennerly Kitt (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)

Subject of article is not notable, the article itself reads like a press release, includes irrelevant references, and misrepresents the references it does have. "Their music has been featured in worldwide mainstream media such as CBS News, The Huffington Post, The Huffington Post UK, The Huffington Post Chicago, National Geographic, BuzzFeed, The Soup, College Humor, Nintendo Life, and Yahoo! Music Canada." This statement is clearly not true, especially if one clicks through to Yahoo music link, which is just a random blog on yahoo music. The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos. (And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowtheory (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 March 2013‎

  • Let it be known that the AFD action taken by Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) does not appear to have been done in good faith since she has stated on her talk page that she has no opinion on the matter, totally ignoring the guidelines listed at WP:AFD. Contrary to what this user stated above, she did not fix the nomination proposed by Knowtheory because this other user had chosen the WP:PROD approach instead. Since Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) claims on her talk page to be a very experienced Wikipedian, I believe she owes us an explanation for her behavior. Dontreader (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toykogirl has over 17,500 edits whereas Dontreader has in the neighborhood of 150; she knows whats going on and has experience dealing with newer editors who have trouble with the Afd process. From the various contribution histories, it appears as though Knowtheory attempted to place the Afd here but didn't know how to do it right.(diff) Tokyogirl79 simply did her job as an administrator and a Wikipedian and formatted the Afd properly. It's best to drop the unwarranted attacks on Tokyogirl79. Location (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it be known that the number of edits is irrelevant it's the quality that matters and just because you are an administrator should not mean that you can make false statements. The original template gave me the right to delete it and so I did I also gave reasons, so please explain, how that is vandalism. The vandalism was done by you Tokyogirl79 as the original template stated that it could be removed and another should not be put in its place, so way was one added. I vote that Tokyogirl79 should lose her administrator rights Robcamstone (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three of you, stop it. This is not relevant to the discussion. You're also incorrect, by the way - look at the time this was brought to AfD, and when Tokyogirl79 tagged the article - I think you should apologize, Robcamstone and Dontreader. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add that I believe that only administrators should be allowed to propose the deletion of articles. It is quite simply wrong to let potential random haters put contributors through this disagreeable situation. We, the contributors to this article, have put many hundreds of hours of love, care and effort into creating and building this page. Wikipedia is all about contributing. Somebody tried to minimize me for having made only around 150 edits. Well, that is certainly better than senselessly trying to destroy a Wikipedia article. Dontreader (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as how it came up, it came up looking like an AfD because the user had begun placing it in AfD format. If it had come up in PROD format, at least proper PROD format, I'd have just ignored its removal. In any case, this is really a silly thing to argue about in the grand scheme of thing. Removing an AfD, even a malformed AfD, before it's had a chance to go through the rest of the AfD process, isn't proper procedure. Unlike the other deletion templates, once an article has been nominated for AfD it has to complete the process. You cannot stop an AfD by removing the template or trying to delete any of it. AfD is the one deletion template that cannot be removed unless it's such an obvious act of vandalism that it cannot be denied. The thing is, I have to assume good faith on behalf of other editors. The deletion argument seems to be easily argued per the below keep arguments, but I have to assume good faith on behalf of the deletion requester. The argument might not be the best one, but at the same time it's not filled with vitrol or an overly obvious attempt at shenanigans. I have to assume good faith. You can argue that the original nominator is someone who has a personal dislike of the band, but you'd have to prove that they did this out of spite and not just because they misread notability guidelines or underestimated the sources. The thing is, you can't prove that. The argument given by KnowTheory isn't phrased to where it'd be an obvious attempt at vandalism. You can try to say otherwise, but the thing is that we can't automatically say that this is an attack against the singers. If you can come up with a post by the same person on another forum that shows it's an attack, then groovy. Once I fixed the template, I cannot close the AfD because I'm technically involved. If the article is solid, it'll survive the process and the stronger the article is, the more likely it would be that the discussion would be closed early. If anything, sometimes deletion arguments like this can be good, as it'll make it easier to close or fight against any further attempts at deletion. Really, this is a big fuss over nothing. Someone requested an AfD and put forth a malformed nomination. I fixed it, all everyone else had to do was voice their keep rationales calmly and let them pile up until another administrator stepped in to speedy close it. Stuff like this has happened before and it'll happen again. One person trying to delete an article isn't going to get rid of or otherwise harm the article. Really, if not for a post on my talk page, this probably would have been your run of the mill AfD where someone posted an argument and it went solidly under the radar and would probably be kept. There's really no need to get as upset as people are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, this is pretty much settled and we should call a moratorium on how this came to AfD and just focus on strengthening the article and its sources. If it's kept, which it looks like it will be, then this will only help guard it against other deletion attempts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote against deletion

Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. This article provides a large number of references and external links to prove notability and no attempt has been made by any editors to misrepresent links to create notability. All links are to valid sources.

If you read the comments on this articles talk page you will see the concerns the individual editors have had about proving notability. Constitutive advice and help would be more valid then an attempt to delete an article.

A list of the claimed miss represented references should have been posted so that editors could check and amend/fix any miss representations, if they exist.

Not clear how you can claim that The Huffington Post, CBS News Chicago Tribune and National Geographic are not valid.

The point about the discography section is not clear at all. They are a harp duet and their singles are all covers as listed, where is the problem with listing their singles even if they are covers?

I can see no reason for deleting an article just because it is yet to be completed. On that bases Wikipedia would have very little information and would have die out years ago.

The article and its talk page could do with being movied to Camille and Kennerly without the Kitt at the end as when searching Wikipedia for them it is unlikely a user would type in Camille and Kennerly kitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamstone (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's a huge amount of fluff in there that needs cleaning, but I think they may well pass WP:GNG. I'll evaluate it later. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

This article was created in December 2011, and had never been proposed for deletion. One can argue that the article needs improvement, but I cannot believe that here I am spending time to defend a page just because someone arbitrarily proposed it for deletion. Let's examine the arguments put forth by Knowtheory

1. "Subject of article is not notable"

This is an article about a biography of living persons; therefore, the subject of the article must be the living persons (Camille and Kennerly Kitt). Hence, you must be able to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. Exactly which parameters/guidelines are you using for your claim?

2. "the article itself reads like a press release"

I disagree entirely. That's just your opinion. Besides, even if you were hypothetically correct, please provide a Wikipedia link which states that an article that reads like a press release should be considered for deletion. There are articles on Wikipedia that are biographies of living persons, which I have encountered, that do read like press releases, and have not been deleted.

3. "includes irrelevant references"

You did not specify which ones, and besides, since when do articles get proposed for deletion because they have included irrelevant references?

4. "and misrepresents the references it does have."

That is a false statement. You cited one reference to claim that the article in general misrepresents the references it does have. If you question the validity of the Yahoo! Canada source, we can debate that, and, as I said, the article can be improved, but your assertion is false. There are plenty of excellent references. So far, you have not provided a single reason for drastically proposing this article for deletion.

5. "The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos."

This statement makes no sense at all. If a completely independent news website featuring the artists happens to include links to their YouTube videos (as is the case with Nintendo Life and CBS News), why is that wrong? Which Wikipedia guideline states that such a situation constitutes a reason for proposing the deletion of an article?

6. "And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers"

Again, provide a Wikipedia link with a guideline stating that if an artist performs covers of songs, and not original material, that artist is not worthy of a Wikipedia page.

Now, I'd like to ask the Wikipedia community if there is anything that can be done in the future to prevent random users from proposing the arbitrary deletion of a page. This was such a waste of time for me and naturally for the community members that have to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Any advice on how to improve the article is most welcome. Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - appears to pass WP:GNG based on sources in the article (namely, those from the Huffington Post, of which there are plenty, the CBS News piece, and the more reliable of the smaller circulation papers in the article), they have had a supporting role in a film (not enough on its own to meet any guideline, but it helps) and have been featured modelling in at least the cover of Nat Geo. They also appear to have had a fairly notable modelling career, IF someone can find a decent ref for the following sentence, taken from their About page: "for three consecutive years, Camille and Kennerly were cast as live runway models for Seventeen Magazine/JC Penney at “Rock Your Prom” fashion events." This article needs nuking of some rubbish, and some references are indeed inappropriately used, but as far as I can establish, this is a notable duet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion! I apologize in advance if I am not allowed to vote because I started this article. I am not a seasoned wikipedia editor, but I rather regularly do small updates on 3 different wikipedia articles of twin duos that interest me. I believe this article to be the most notable of the three. This article has been here for a long time and the Harp Twins are even more well-known and notable than they were when I made this article. I did a lot of research before beginning this article and I truly believe it to fit the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I certainly did not try to write my original article about Camille and Kennerly to read like a press release. I apologize for any unintentional "fluff". I added as many sources as possible to verify all of the information in the article, some of which have since been removed by other editors to make it more streamlined, I believe. Thank you again everyone for your input and I hope this article remains on Wikipedia. crowdsalesmed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. It serves the project that this remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of blog posts saying look at this cool YouTube video an a piece where they talk about themselves (exclusion fromwp:music#1) does not IMO add up to significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: First of all, it seems to me that you appear to be minimizing the notability of blogs; however, The Huffington Post is described in its Wikipedia article as a blog, yet there is consensus in the Wikipedia community that The Huffington Post is notable, or else it wouldn't have an article of its own. This is relevant because Camille and Kennerly Kitt and their music videos have been the subject of three works published by The Huffington Post alone, including an interview which also mentions their acting careers. Secondly, you brought up wp:music to make your case. Well, if we examine that page carefully, we'll see that you made a mistake:
The page reads, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". I will focus on the first criterion:
"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". The page clarifies the meaning of trivial coverage: "such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." This is not the case of the sources cited in the article that is being discussed. Also, apart from the three notable Huffington Post sources, I'll just add two more which are definitely not blogs; one of them is CBS News online, and the other one is the online version of one of Italy's top two newspapers in terms of circulation: La Repubblica. Yes, their music videos are mentioned, but so are they, even with a reference to their acting careers in the case of La Repubblica. You are oversimplifying their coverage in these five notable articles, but the undeniable mistake that you made was to take the phrase "significant coverage" out of context because that phrase is mentioned twice in that page you cited, but in the Recordings section, and in the Concert Tours section. Therefore, they are notable because they meet the first criterion. Dontreader (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't questioned those sites notability, you seem to be mixing up notability and reliability.
They are not notable articles, were is the coverage about that first Huffington blog post, nowhere cause it's not notable. A blog post saying look at this wired sex trope is not the sort of independent reliable coverage needed to build a WP:BLP.
This is just yet another case of blogs passing around viral YouTube videos. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must emphasize that you brought up wp:music to make your case for deletion. Again, according to that page, it is sufficient for a musician or ensemble to be deemed notable if the following criterion is met: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." You can argue that the five articles that I cited are not notable, but I have already established that they are not "trivial", plus they are not "self-published", and they are "independent from the musician or ensemble itself" (except for the Huffington Post Chicago interview). Therefore, all I have to do is demonstrate that these sources (let's exclude the interview) are "reliable" in order to establish that the ensemble is notable. Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, you have no way to deny that these sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, these sources "directly support the material presented in the article and are appropriate to the claims made." Additionally, these sources appear in "respected mainstream publications". Honestly, you will encounter great difficulty if you try to prove that these sources arr not reliable, but of course you are free to spend your time on that endeavor. Finally, having established that the ensemble is notable according to wp:music, your effort to disqualify a source (and the entire article that is being discussed) because of the phrase "weird sex trope" is irrelevant, as well as your assertion that "This is just yet another case of blogs passing around viral YouTube videos." (a claim that is merely your opinion, not a fact, by the way). Thanks for your input. Dontreader (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. That first Huffington Post article also says, "Yes, there have been other attempts to cover Ramin Djawadi's haunting tune before, but this one is now the only one." Therefore, I don't see how you can maintain your claim that "This is just yet another case of blogs passing around viral YouTube videos." Dontreader (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's the other way around. Blogs are generally not reliable sources but exceptions do apply, it needs to be shown why there should be an exception. The verifiablity section you point says use with care, this is especially so with BLPs. It talks of possible use if the writers are professional but these blogs lack a byline so that does not. Lets look at the blog posts themselves, puffy pieces saying look at this YouTube video with a little bit of fleshing out with bio info cribbed from the twins website. They lack any depth on independent editorial analysis. Not good enough for BLPs. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I brought up The Huffington Post, the online version of CBS News, and the online version of La Repubblica, you said that you had not questioned the notability of those sites; therefore, please explain why you seem to be claiming that articles from those sites are not reliable. And please tell me which statements in the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page that use these articles as sources might not be true. Do you question that their music videos have received millions of views? Do you suspect that they are not really the ones that play the harps? That they are not true blondes? That they are not really twins, and that instead it's all a hoax? What information backed by these sources are you doubting exactly? Dontreader (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable and Reliable are two different things. Please take some time to read up about those two different concepts.
Your stupid strawmen do not help here. I have not here questioned the info, just the sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the others that have stated that this article meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. It should remain and be improved over time through editing. Camille and Kennerly are notable harpists as The Harp Twins both with live performances such as Cusp Conference, and online they are YouTube stars with over many millions of views and growing rapidly. They also have had supporting roles in several notable films including Politics of Love with Bollywood superstar Mallika Sherawat and a 2013 DreamWorks film with Vince Vaughn. bollywooddancer7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really thing a conference appearance and a few supporting roles is good enough for WP:ENT. If so please detail how. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's suppose just for the sake of argument that they do not meet WP:ENT. I have proven that they meet wp:music, so then you cannot be in favor of the deletion of the article even if we suppose they don't meet WP:ENT. You could propose that the article be modified, but not deleted. Dontreader (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't proven, you've argued. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dontreader. I did not write that this was their only performance, I wrote "live performances such as". Cusp Conference was just one example. You also ignored their YouTube fame. This article clearly at least meets wp:music and I am not the only one on this talk page to believe that it also meets WP:ENT. bollywooddancer7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A large list of live performances like that do not satisfy WP:ENT. Neither does YouTube "fame". Like yourself others who have said they meet ENT haven't said how (WP:JUSTAPOLICY) in away that actually matches ENT. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camille_and_Kennerly_Kitt&oldid=1089931725"