Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucki Starr

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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted four times by four different admins. If she becomes famous enough the protection can be lifted, but as it is it's just been recreated every time it's deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucki Starr[edit]

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

Not really notable - sources are not so much sources as passing mentions and YouTube channels. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. This version of the article is identical to that created by Luckistarrfanpage and ultimately speedy deleted by Iridescent. The few independent sources only had passing mentions of her, if they mentioned her at all. For some of the claims in the article, the cited source would mention another person in that capacity. Accordingly, she fails at having any significance or importance validly asserted about her. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't salt (or at least make an appeal process clear in the deletion rationale so future creators see it). While this person clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria at present, there seems a reasonable chance she'll have her fifteen minutes at some point, and unless the recreation reaches nuisance levels we don't really want a repeat of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Zuckerberg. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't we have a repeat of a decision that was perfectly valid when it was made, just as it would have been valid to delete an article about a Swiss patent office clerk in 1904 if Wikipedia had been around then? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's deletion policy (and in particular WP:G4) means that once something is deleted via AFD, that tends to create a presumption of non-notability which makes it extremely hard to create an article in future should the subject's notability change, as the patrollers jump on it. (Check out the deletion log for Nicki Minaj for a particularly extreme example.) That Zuckerberg deletion was never valid by the deletion criteria of the time; at the time, Facebook had considerably more readers (and multiple orders of magnitude more participants) than Wikipedia itself, and nobody was proposing to delete this or this. ‑ Iridescent 23:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2016 (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.