Talk:K-391

Draft acceptance
This draft was accepted as a result of a deletion review that closed on May 12. The details of that discussion can be found here. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  18:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There was consensus subtracting the illegitimate votes
Hello. The deletion discussion has closed with "no consensus". I believe there was some foul play in some of the votes. For example, maybe it was K-391 who told them to show up and support keeping the page. Those people had not made any credible argument other than merely suggesting he is notable. For that reason alone, I think there was consensus favoring my deletion request. In letter of the rule, maybe the first vote was credible. However, in spirit, this musician is akin to a floor sweeper of, for example, Mark Zuckerberg (my point being this guy cannot be notable for merely working with a well-known individual). How can consensus be reached when the discussion is now closed, prohibiting further comments to the discussion? What is the follow-up procedure to situations like this? Who is responsible for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia? KoopaLoopa (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have tangible proof of foul play? Anyhow, I'm sure knows enough about closing discussions to know that we don't go by votes alone, we go by strength of argument. Discussion closers typically know to look out for single-purpose accounts and first-time-editing IPs. That said, I see two significant keep arguments from Micro and Michig, and a middle-of-the-road move to draft suggestion. So I too think there is no clear consensus to delete the article. And believe me, I understand the "why does this clown have an article?" frustration--I have seen hundreds of obviously promotional articles about dubiously notable Indian actors. But if they technically have two significant roles in their work history, even if it's on some show that only a few thousand people watch, that's usually enough to let the article pass. It may be of note that the article creator  was indeffed for advertising, although that's probably just going to irritate you more.  Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , my understanding is that if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article (Notability). For K-391, no reliable sources discuss him at all, other than mentioning him for a song he collaborated with his notable friend Alan Walker (music producer). This argument was presented by me and the delete voters. I think it's a really strong argument because it comes from a Wikipedia guideline, whereas the keep voters were mainly pointing to Notability (music) which merely provides a rule of thumb that does not directly assert that an article should be created if it passes the criteria. Therefore, the argument made by the keep voters shouldn't carry much weight. All in all, there were 3 deletion voters (myself included) and 1 "move to draft" voter. The "move to draft" comment may essentially be supporting deletion as well because moving a page to draft means "deleting" it from the main area. While I respect Lourdes' closure, I think this page deserves another shot at discussion, this time with greater participation. What do you say? KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many notability triggers. The general notability guideline is one of them, but with my example above, there might not be any in-depth coverage of Indian Actor X in mainstream publications, but if they have multiple major roles, that usually qualifies them for an article, per WP:NACTOR. Anyhow, it wasn't my intention to debate your opinion or to decide whether or not the closure was correct. You could always ask Lourdes her thoughts if you need clarification. If you choose to pursue a second deletion nomination, please prepare yourself to accept an unsavory result if it swings that way. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. Maybe it is a flaw in the system rather than the voters. Perhaps a reform is needed to those guidelines that allow musicians and actors who are not famous to get through. KoopaLoopa (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

K is now using Studio One
K is using Studio One to make music now but not FL studio(you can see it at https://discord.com/channels/695375153177034834/879736888557195285/944564431667482705) so we should remove the "FLstudio user" tag (sorry for my bad English because I am a Chinese.) Mike621 (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in K-391
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of K-391's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FRA": From Moti discography:  From Alan Walker discography:  From Wyclef Jean:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)