Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kay Rush


 * 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   delete. Consensus seems to be the article does not pass WP:V or WP:N NW ( Talk ) 13:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Kay Rush

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Publicity page seeking to establish notablility of a non notable person. No references to verify and no true notability asserted. All external links are spammy in nature Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Kay rush is a notable person in Italy.User:Lucifero4
 * Using Google, which I agree is not the ultimate arbiter of notability, I see no notability for this person from reliable sources, certainly yet. When and if Kay Rush is verifiably notable then she may have an article with pleasure. So far she appears to have been very involved with self publicity in this article in an apparent attempt to create notability. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise one's self. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kay Rush has been the host of San Remo music festival, Raiuno is also the most viewed tv station of Italy.User:Lucifero4
 * Please see this google search. Wikipedia requires verifiability, assuming that this is notable. If you have relevant citations then add them to the article. That is what will save it, not the making of statements here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see San Remo Festival, where Rush's name is absent. This looks to be the festival you mention. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a link of rush in San Remo, then a link from Raiuno official website where Rush is mentioned with the surname Sandvik the surmane of his stepfather .User:Lucifero4
 * Youtube is not a valid source for citations. As for the other one, I thought Rush was a lady. If you have valid citations please ensure that you add them to the article. Note that they must pass WP:RS to be acceptable. Adding links here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have place the links in order to show to everyone that Rush is a well known woman and because you have written that you can find citation about rush in Sanremo.User:Lucifero4
 * And I can still find none. 'Sandvik' is Sandvik; where does Sandvik equate to Rush? Where can this be cited? And Youtube is not relevant here. FInd citations and place them in the article if you can. So far all you are achieving is a long and fruitless discussion. The article is a curriculum vitae and an advert. It is borderline Speedy Deletion material. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDB: "Pazza famiglia" (1995) TV series (as Kay Sandvik) - BalthCat (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDB is a user edited site and thus not a reliable source. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Google reveals plenty of adequate if not ideal sources. The most reliable mistakenly spells it with a C, so I suppose we can't "prove" anything.  Just pretend the information doesn't exist, since you can't find it in a peer reviewed article, I guess.  Or does that mean we have to spell her name wrong, since it's sourced as such? - BalthCat (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires Reliable Sources, not adequate sources. It's an encyclopaedia, not a gossip column, and it is certainly not a place for Kay Rush to establish her own notability as she appears to be seeking to do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, why is verifiability a suggested tag under WP:ATD?  (Also don't bother me with Rush's COI, that's a completely separate issue.)  - BalthCat (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are so keen on saving the article, cease the rhetoric and hop in and edit it and save it that way. Currently is is pretty much blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resumé. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closer I think this would benefit from relisting. The original listing was slap bang in the middle of a set of procedural nominations and/or relistings and may have been obscured. I see insufficient interest even to classify this as no consensus at this stage. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Notability is asserted multiple times, such as She wins a Telegatto, the Italian equivalent for an Emmy.  The claim is that she's all over notable television networks and shows.  This may be a BLP but there appears to be nothing contentious, this really ought to be brought to the attention of some WikiProjects for fixing. - BalthCat (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete."Notability is asserted multiple times"? In this article it is, yes, but there are no references to show so outside wiki. Moriori (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this refers to me: Sourcing is a problem to be fixed. WP:ATD says If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. - BalthCat (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's your chance then. If you fix the problem, I'll change my vote. Moriori (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "vote" isn't needed. You might take to heart that it's as much your responsibility as mine to find proper sources for this article.  - BalthCat (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like hell it is. Every editor has the right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work. It is not our responsibility to come along after them and do their job for them. We're already busy trying to make wiki look like an encyclopedia.Moriori (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So in what way is it my responsibility more than yours? WP:ATD is pretty clear. If you want to do something extraordinary, like delete an article with clear assertions of notability and significant indication in weak sources that notability may be verifiable, then YOU go the extra mile.  The verify tag exists for a reason: tag it and move on.  - BalthCat (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How disingenuous. I didn't say it is more your responsibility than mine. I said editors have a right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work without having to do it for them. It is revealing that you think my vote isn't  needed.  Moriori (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this isn't my work, or my creation, so challenging me to justify and reference it is making it my responsibility to fix this article's problems. There's nothing disingenuous about calling you on that.  Your vote isn't needed (by me, at least) because you haven't provided a justifiable reason for deleting this article, considering the clear meaning of WP:ATD.  Considering that it is clear from reading Google results that Kay Rush/Sandvik is at minimum marginally notable, it is entirely justifiable to suggest that there's no good excuse to ignore WP:ATD.  - BalthCat (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. You said sourcing was a problem to be fixed, and I called you on it. Even if this survives afd, it will attract further attention unless it is adequately referenced. Moriori (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is what I said bollocks? Yes, I said it was a problem to be fixed, see WP:TIND. Tell me how WP:ATD and google's indication she is at minimum marginally notable not add up to keeping the article with a verify tag?  - BalthCat (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep She is a well known radio personality in Italy. That's what the first result from a Google news search told me.  Plus if she's won a notable award, that counts too.   D r e a m Focus  04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is asserted plenty of times, but there's no genuine significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails [{WP:BIO]], WP:GNG. Claritas § 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Precisely the reason I nominated it. This page seeks to establish the subject's notability, it does not record it from reliable sources Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you people ever actually read WP:ATD? Sourcing is not a justification for deletion if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is notable and sources can be found.  Has anyone who has recommended delete bothered to go looking?  has anyone informed a relevant WikiProject?  has anyone asked anyone who speaks Italian or who lives in Italy?  Sourcing is a problem with a solution.  If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.  WP:ATD then proceeds to specifically tell you that the { { verify } } tag is there for you to use.  How is this not an obvious directive to keep articles that assert notability until there is indication (aside from some googling) that the article is unverifiable?  - BalthCat (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of you people, a term which I find to be disparaging to the point of general incivility, I have read it. I have chosen to nominate it because those tags have just plain not workd. If you care that much then leap in and edit it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would need an army to fix all the articles nominated for deletion despite WP:TIND, WP:PAPER, and WP:ATD, among others. I'm not entirely sure what would satisfy people at this point, to be completely honest.  Pazza famiglia 2 had an average audience of 5.4 million viewers as per this.  I find other Google book references, but I can't read Italian. - BalthCat (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The burden of finding sources to establish notability is on those who believe the article should be kept. I looked, and could find none that satisfied me.  This article is basically a WP:RESUME for a non-notable person.    Snotty Wong   babble 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doubt has been expressed over whether sources are likely to exist. To rebut this, sources should be shown. Yes, there are many claims of notability, but no sources to back them up. At the moment WP:V is as much a problem as WP:N. Bear in mind that had this been created a couple of months later it would have been deleted as BLPPROD. I cannot imagine why we should be any less stringent going through an AfD than sticking a prod on. Quantpole (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I legally changed my adopted name back to my birth name, hence the confusion with Rush and Sandvick. In Europe, they had difficulty spelling and pronouncing my name Kay Rush Kayrush (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Article in English about me and my name change: http://www.onmilwaukee.com/ent/articles/kaytalks.html Now that we are past this obstacle, what do I need to do or cancel to make my page acceptable? It was already in Wikipedia Italia; I only translated it. I am also in Wikipedia Spain because I worked in television there for four years. I have not had any problems in either of these countries. If I have to cancel some sentences, no problem. I do not need the publicity; I only wanted the page in my mother tongue for people who do know me in the United States. Thank you. Kay Rush Kayrush (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the Italian and Spanish articles. As far as I can determine, the sources there do not pass WP:RS either. Their standards may be different from here, of course. I have no way of judging. But, so far as I can tell, even using those sources as citations fails to assert and/or verify notability. Ms Rush has asked me for advice on my talk page, and I have responded there in the hopes that she may yet find appropriate sources to allow this article to be kept. I have also advised her that editing an article about one's self is deprecated. Perhaps an editor who feels strongly about keeping this article might approach her to help her avoid COI. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- after nearly two weeks at AFD, the side advocating keep still have not satisfied WP:BURDEN- and I can't find any substantial coverage either. Reyk  YO!  01:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To be fair, for the first week the notice was somewhat lost. Even so those concerned with editing the article only seem to have switched a gear yesterday by asking (above) what to do. Yet the Italian and Spanish articles also suffer fromthe same problem. As someone commented above, I, too, do not read these languages, but I was not satisfied that the media I could find in them were themselves {{WP:RS]] compliant, so reading the text was hardly relevant. And there is Google Translate. We also know that anyone can wrte a book and that you acquire an ISBN as a matter of course whether your book is vanity published or mainstream published. WP:TIND was quoted above, an amusing essay, but just that, an essay. WP:PAPER was quoted, something which looks like a last ditch attempt to save the unsavabale. "Look, we can't actually find any references for this, but let's keep it anyway, we have shedloads of room" is not a valid argument. Itls like taking in all the stray mongrel puppies you can find and pretending they are pedigree dogs and entering them for Crufts. When Ms Rush becomes notable and verifiable, then the article on her has a place here. However I can find, so far, nothing to suggest that she passes our criteria. And her references to "my article" reinforce my belief that this is a publicity exercise, an advert. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also refer to an article about me as "my article", rather than "the article about me" for brevity's sake, as she might refer to "her picture" whether or not it was taken by a provessional photographer or a hobo on the street, so long as the subject was her. I believe the COI issue is completely irrelevent to this AfD. - BalthCat (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can simply point you to these: WP:RESUME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY. This article fails. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.