Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj Lazy K

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Lazy K[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable disc jockey who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search which can easily be verified shows her mentioned only in user generated and self published sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Undecided) - Contrary to what the nominator said, one of the three sources in the article is Rolling Stone which is absolutely not "unreliable", and the DJ was the primary interview subject for that story. The article uses a citation from The Source in which the DJ is mentioned briefly, that is also a reliable source; while the article misses another placement from The Source in which the DJ is fully profiled: [1]. Whether or not those add up to significant coverage is the correct topic of this debate, and "unreliable" is a red herring. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520, I have a script that shows unreliable sources according to RSP & it expressly tagged that source as blatant unreliable, I was dazed yesterday when the script told me the source was unreliable, Perhaps a malfunction of the tool, in any case as you know all to well as one who has once carried the NPR perm, one good source is to small & doesn’t do anything to substantiate nor prove notability. An interview as you well know isn’t independent of the subject this can’t be considered reliable. I’m not sure what your argument is here but if you are insinuating that the subject of the is somewhat notable I believe you are more than welcome to show what criterion from WP:MUSICBIO they meet or show sources that prove them notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my vote was Undecided on notability, and I did not "insinuate" anything. I stated in plain language that the reasoning in the nomination is faulty. Blaming a script is an unconvincing substitute for a WP:BEFORE search. At least change the reasoning in the nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520, A before came back with nothing cogent & I am not blaming the script per se, what I said or at least I’m trying to say is a script called the source unreliable, which was rather puzzling, and a before search showed nothing cogent. Furthermore an undecided !vote for a non notable musician who meets no criterion from MUSICBIO nor do they satisfy GNG is indicative of contemplation & how you are contemplating a clear case of non notability is, for a lack of better word baffling. I have although changed the non rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - My argument with the nominator about the rationale is distracting for everyone else, but "...only in user generated and self published sources" is still in the nomination and is still wrong. The nominator missed a reliable source that was already cited in the article, and apparently still hasn't read it after it was pointed out. In the Rolling Stone article the DJ was interviewed as a subject matter expert and prominent member of a genre, so it is not one of those softball profiles. She has also been noted several times in The Source for backing famous people. Alas, I don't think that quite adds up to the significant coverage required for notability, but she comes kind of close. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the nomination, I don't see anything here that holds up strong enough for me to be convinced she meets WP:GNG via WP:SIGCOV. As DOOMSDAYER has pointed out - it doesn't quite add up. Delighted if the subject is mentioned in other articles covering subjects she's a SME on, but, at this point, I don't see how she qualifies for her own Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (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.