Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Lukas

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Lukas[edit]

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

Initially suggested for BLPPROD but was removed without the author adding Reliable sources. All references are from networking sites and selfpublished source. SefBau : msg 08:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is pretty much completely unsourced, which is a clear BLP violation. To add to that, the artist does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO. T C N7JM 09:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article was unsourced but I've added a couple and there are a couple more. There's not much there from a WP:MUSICBIO perspective but the subject is obviously considered culturally significant in her own right. She was appointed as part of the official delegation to the London 2012 Olympics with the House of Switzerland (the Swiss Government's official cultural exchange program). She was then appointed by the Estonian Government to represent Europe in Washington, DC for the European Month of Culture in 2013 (see this from the Foreign Ministry). She's one of the only musicians on the list. It's not a cut-and-dry case but I'm not ready to call this as "non-notable" yet. Stalwart111 13:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the middle of the article remains unsourced, but if that is either sourced or removed, I'll gladly switch my !vote. T C N7JM 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can certainly remove all of the unsourced stuff but that wouldn't really be a reason for keeping or deleting anyway, would it? Either the subject is notable or not - the state of the article itself isn't particularly relevant. But by all means - remove whatever you like. Stalwart111 14:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess not. I guess I didn't know what I was talking about there. When I originally looked for sources, I couldn't find any of this stuff about the Olympics for some reason. Must not have been looking in the right places. T C N7JM 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? You didn't go looking through obscure announcements from the Swiss Government or official diplomatic news from the various Estonian embassies? I'm shocked! No seriously, the stuff wasn't particularly easy to find and, like I said, she fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG is borderline. It's an obscure claim to notability, for sure, and I'm still not even 100%. I certainly don't begrudge you or the nom whatsoever and I'm still at "weak". Stalwart111 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep. Notability has been proven. T C N7JM 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 23 August 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.