Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Françoise Cactus

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Françoise Cactus[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)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any standalone notability independently of her band. As always, every member of every band is not automatically entitled to have her own separate article just because she exists -- to warrant her own biographical article in addition to already being mentioned in the band's article, she has to be demonstrated as having her own independent notability for other reasons, such as having also released solo albums. The sources here aren't cutting it, however: this is literally reference bombing everything the creator could get their hands on, including product sales pages on Amazon.com and directory entries on streaming platforms and Blogspot blogs -- while the relatively few references that are actually reliable sources all just namecheck that she exists in the process of being about the band. This is not how you establish that a musician is notable enough to spin off a second article about her as a person on top of the band article that already exists. If you need 31 references to support just 90 words of content, because you're stacking eight to ten different references on each individual sentence, then you're doing it very wrong. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also notable as an artist and writer. The concerns of the nom can be taken care of without deletion (and do not support deletion anyway, just redirection). Low-quality unnecessary references can be removed at any time by editorial discretion. —Kusma (t·c) 09:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither artists nor writers get an automatic "notable just because they exist" either. Notability still requires both (a) an actual notability claim to be present in the article in the first place, which "she and her work exist" is not, and (b) actual reliable sourcing to support it. There's not a single reliable source in the article that's covering her in an artistic or literary context — the reliable sources are entirely about the band she's in as a musician, while the art and literature is entirely junksourced to unreliable garbage. Even for artists and writers, the notability test is still "media coverage given to her in the context of accomplishing something significant", not just "she is verifiable as existing". Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and there is such coverage. Perlentaucher mentions reviews of two of her books in major newspapers, the tageszeitung talks about her more than a hundred times [1]. Her "Wollita" artwork caused a bit of a scandal in Berlin. The German article has a lot of that info, but with fairly poor referencing. The article definitely needs a lot of work, but the person definitely is notable. —Kusma (t·c) 21:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The best of the refererences now in the article are adequate to show that she is notable and that she has some interesting accomplishments independent of the duo. Of course, the article is poor stylistically and the solution to the valid criticism of refererence bombing is to remove the lower quality refererences and expand the article based on what the better refererences say about her. Refbombing is not a valid argument to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2019 (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.