Talk:Molly Lewis

Please keep this page
I reall think there is no reason to remove this page. Molly is a YouTube presence and a legitimate person to want to search on the Wikipedia. - CaseyBorders

I came here looking for information about Molly Lewis and found the speedy deletion notice, so I signed up for an account in the hope that I could somehow save the page. Since then the speedy deletion has changed to a deletion proposal, so I would like to simply state my support for the continued existence of the page in the hope that it will be improved by people who have more information about her than I do. I do not know Molly Lewis in real life or on the internet but I enjoy her music. Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, she has about 13,000 youtube subscribers who are going to keep recreating this page even if it does get deleted... I think you're right, there isn't very much information on this. We should ask her to edit it and make it better. =) Dubhuir (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; Molly deserves a page! Julia Nunes has one, and she's only slightly more famous than Molly. â€”Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Chuckles (talk â€¢ contribs) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Molly has been posting ukulele videos on Youtube for longer than Julia Nunes, and I heard somewhere that Julia was inspired in some way by Molly, but I can't remember where I saw this, if anyone else can find it then we could probably add something about that to the article. Also, Molly was interviewed here: http://gigcast.nightgig.com/archives/category/gigcasts/page/7 (the interview starts about 29 minutes in), we may be able to get some quotes from that. Captain Fishy (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CaptainFishy, I think you're talking about this video.  -Horseylou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horseylou (talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I find it telling that the tagger didn't bother to stop on the talk page and mention why they think it should be deleted. I stand corrected. They explain themselves on the deletion talk page. NipokNek (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

i dont get the policy of wikipedia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

As of July 2010, Molly has over 30,000 YouTube subscribers and I have seen her in concert numerous times with artists who have their own Wikipedia pages (which link to this article). This article adds value to the English Wikipedia and should definitely be kept. Parajedi (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have enough sources at this point for Molly to be considered notable. Since nobody has said otherwise since the page was brought back, and the admin who previously removed the page consented to restore it, I think this page is here to stay. MisterFancyPants (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia song
I saw her live in Chicago and she did a song about her previous 'break up' with wikipedia. Does that deserve a mention in her current wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.201.81 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean this song? ("I had an article for about a week, but then I was deemed not famous enough - like, they thumbed through the rulebook and took my article down. Um, 'cause like internet fame doesn't count, or something...") 24.118.53.177 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Wikipedia got back at her by adorning her article with a rather unfavourable photo. If I check where it's from I see that she is much younger, slimmer and prettier than that. Why not use e.g. this one? --Rodeng (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That picture is listed as "all rights reserved", so it's unsuitable for reuse. Of course, given that it's from a Wootstock event, I don't think the photographer actually has the right to revoke the Creative Commons license the events are promoted through. tedder (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the photographer. The shot in question was at a post-show photograph/autograph session, and I do not believe the w00tstock Creative Commons license applies. Note that all my shots of the actual w00tstock performance are indeed released under a CC license. If the consensus is that you'd like to use one of my rights-reserved shots for Molly, it's pretty easy to email me and ask. I'd probably be happy to release it under CC for use on Wikipedia. 70.139.113.158 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oopsie-doopsie, I went ahead and replaced the photo before checking here. Photographer-in-question, the offer is much appreciated. But I just went to Flickr and found out her own photos are actually CC-BY already, and this one works pretty well. (Even though it's unfortunately another Wikipedia group-photo-crop I think it turned out better than usual.) If anyone would prefer a different one, here are some other nice, compatibly-licensed ones I found in my search:
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/12308893@N07/5004064086/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikesmith916/4998722757/
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

whither Trivia?
As noted, trivia sections are discouraged, and while I'm one of the biggest cheerleaders for this page, I'm not sure it would suffer much if the trivia section were removed. As it stands, it contains a bunch of unsupported generalizations.
 * "notoriously forgets...often substitutes other things" This happened once, AFAIK.  In addition to being arguably incorrect, it arguably violates WP:NOR, at least in the absence of supporting sources.
 * Explanation of the "sweetafton23" nickname might warrant its own section, but it needs to be better researched (specifically the Spilman connection) and cited.
 * The comparison to Julia/Jake/Chris is insightful, but it's trivia, and it might arguably be seen as self-promoting.
 * Her covers are mentioned, if not exhaustively noted, in the Career section.
 * A handful of duets with other musicians, none of whom is seemingly notable enough to have a wikipedia page, doesn't strike me as especially noteworthy.

I'd like to clean this up. Specifically, I'm inclined to move the nickname point to its own section and strike the other sections. Anyone object? MisterFancyPants (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Picutre
I think she posted better pictures of herself that's framed as a portrait about only her, so there should be no need to crop a picture of a group. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)