Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Crimes (2nd nomination)

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. Although if someone yells at me and says I should have closed as "no consensus", I wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing with them. There is some consensus that NMUSICIAN is met through #1 and #7, as well as some consensus that GNG is met. There is certainly not unanimous agreement that any given source meets these criteria, but that is an editorial judgement call, and not something that can be set in stone. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Crimes[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, with some advertorial undertones, of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no evidence of anything more than purely local coverage. Seven of the eight footnotes here are to either an alt-weekly or a music scene blog in Denver's local media, and the only source that expands so much as one mile beyond the local at all just gives her a very short blurb in a listicle. Nothing stated in the article passes any of NMUSIC's accomplishment-based inclusion criteria, so the only criterion in play here is #1 -- but even #1 still requires a musician's media coverage to expand beyond just local scene coverage in her own city. Obviously, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and wider coverage to properly verify it -- but neither the sourcing here, nor the substance of what they're supporting, are enough to already get her into Wikipedia today. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to have resolved the first discussion (which I didn't know about until after completing this one) as a keep — and even if it does get kept again, it still requires some rewriting to deadvertorialize it. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles we could debate #1 in terms of coverage, but #7 would also apply. Would say it passes WP:GNG either way. As a native Coloradan, I also take exception with terms in the nomination used to describe Westword and other Colorado periodicials that have covered this artist. Would be happy to have that discussion on the reliable source noticeboard. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination statement did not disparage Westword in any way (Ultra5280, on the other hand...) — the problem with Westword isn't that it's unreliable in principle, it's that if a person hasn't accomplished anything of nationalized significance, then the existence of a few pieces of purely local coverage in their own local media market is not enough to get them over the "notable just because media exists" bar. It's the same as the reason why we would accept Denver's mayors as notable, but not necessarily its city councillors even though they have local coverage in the local media too: the context of what a city councillor is getting coverage for is of far less nationalized interest than the context of what the mayor is getting coverage for. As I've said many times, if the existence of two or more pieces of purely local media coverage, in a context of purely local interest, were enough coverage in and of itself to get a person over WP:GNG and exempt them from having to actually pass a subject-specific inclusion criterion on their accomplishments, then we would have to keep articles about presidents of church bake sale committees, elementary school dance coaches, winners of high school poetry contests, my mother's neighbour who got some local coverage a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard, every single person in the world whose house ever burned down, and me. So if a musician doesn't have anything on her résumé that passes an NMUSIC achievement criterion, then it takes a lot more than just a few pieces of coverage in her own city's own local alt-weekly to get her over the "notable because media coverage" bar. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally had no opinion, but in reading the discussion, I agree with Bearcat that local review sources for a local musician are generally just PR, and cannot be considered independent. This I think is true for all performers and artists and writers, even more so that for local establishments. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also voted in the last AfD, which by the way was closed as KEEP just three hours before this new AfD. That was an act of community WP:CONSENSUS that has a certain amount of merit. In any case, the singer has fairly in-depth coverage from regional music sources (as noted by a previous voter) plus some notice from the LGBT press. Here are some more from both realms: [1], [2], [3]. Enough for WP:NMUSICIAN #1 for some independent media notice that really is about her music, and #7 for coverage as an LGBT representative of a local scene. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that the article does need to have some promotional language removed, but the nominator said that too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if a person hasn't achieved anything that gets them over NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria, then the existence of a few pieces of purely local coverage in their own city's local media is not in and of itself enough to get them over #1. If you're shooting for "notable just because media coverage exists", then that coverage has to break wider than just a single city. And as for #7, that's still a criterion that absolutely every musician who exists at all can always try to claim they pass, if three or four hits in the local media was all they had to show to get there — it's still a criterion that requires much more coverage than this shows before it actually gets satisfied. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doomsdayer520. I found the same sources when having a look, and I believe there's enough there to be able to write a suitable article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 9 April 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.