Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight (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. Relist has resulted in an even more solid keep consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Starlight

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete - fails WP:BIO due to a lack of verifiable and reliable sources. Previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight. SplashScreen (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Certainly fairly well-known, and in addition to the sources in the article, there's this. Much of the coverage relates to Lady Gaga and their friendship, so the case for inclusion is weak. I have declined the G4 put on the article as this is quite different to the version previously deleted at AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Much of the coverage relates to Lady Gaga and their friendship" - yes, and notability is not inherited. Lady Starlight needs to do something independently from her celebrity friends in order to become notable, as Wikipedia is not a tabloid or and indiscriminate collection of information. SplashScreen (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Artist was highly influential in launching and shaping the career of a widely-known, pop sensation. Sourcing can be improved for sure, but I think there is little question that this individual has and will get plenty of attention from reliable sources for her role in Gaga's career. Here are some book sources that can be used to improve the article:  .--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "[S]haping the career of a widely-known, pop sensation" does not pass WP:NMUSIC per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Those three sources (which are all of questionable reliability) are all in relation to Lady Gaga; Lady Starlight has no notability outside of this tabloid "friendship". SplashScreen (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a magic wand to make pop culture articles go away. It is not a "tabloid friendship", but a professional relationship between two entertainers. The subject of this article played a powerful role in influencing and building the career of a highly notable entertainer and there is plenty of coverage to go with that.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tabloid friendship", "professional relationship", whatever. If a person is only known because of their association with another person and are not subject to independent and non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources, then they are not notable on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:INHERITED does not mean that just because something is only discussed in the context of something else that there cannot be an article on it. The standard for having an article spinoff is if the subject is notable enough for an article and the amount of coverage of that subject is substantial enough that it could not all be included in the main article. Other policies apply, but there is no indication that this article violates any of those policies.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyvio. After seeing DC's comment I found that, aside from the portion ripped from wikia, the rest of the article appears to be copied from her official page. Even if there is some sort of permission involved we should not be substantially copy-pasting this kind of material into an article. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that the copyvio issues appear to have been addressed and there are editors looking to insert original wording based on reliable sources my reasons for keeping stand.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep enough to meet General notability guideline and WP:Notability (people). Sadly, this appears to be another poorly thought out nomination from having failed to follow the guidelines of Nominating an article(s) for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fæ, you can follow me around Wikipedia and make as many smears on each of the pages on which I comment as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that this article fails WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. SplashScreen (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. Please do not feel obliged to respond to every keep comment in this AFD. --Fæ (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same to you. SplashScreen (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Originally closed as keep (based on above !votes and sources), but relisted on request by nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this common practice? I'm wondering why DRV was not applied. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's called talking to the closing administrator, and it precedes Deletion Review. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - can editors please note that the three aforementioned trivial mentions in "unofficial biographies" of Lady Gaga which, as well as violating WP:BLP, focus solely on the subject's friendship and do not address the concerns raised in the opening nomination. SplashScreen (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Has featured on international tours and received press coverage. There's also significant coverage in books on Google Books, e.g. Lady Gaga: Just Dance: The Biography, Helia Phoenix (Hachette), Lady Gaga: A Biography, Paula Johanson (ABC-CLIO), as well as references already mentioned. Lady Starlight is a DJ in her own right. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Without regard to whether or not a viable article could be written about this person, it should be noted that the current article copies passages verbatim from here and uses an image that is almost certainly a copyright violation (hint: the copyright owner is "Chris Kralik/Retna Ltd"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it passes notability guidelines either, but I've removed most of the copyvio from the article and took away a few of the "sources" that were not usable. (Such a link to a tabloid and a ticket sale page.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UT
 * On top of Tokyogirl's edits, I've removed some more unsourced content and citations from unreliable blogs and even Wikipedia itself. We now have citations from a potentially unreliable biography of Lady Gaga, a list of dates in which she will be performing at the same place as Lady Gaga and a series of unverified claims about Lady Gaga in a interview . I think it's safe to say that this individual holds no notability outside of her relationship with Lady Gaga and fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:MUSICBIO. SplashScreen (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not "safe to say" as there are plenty of reliable sources out there on this individual and even tabloids confer notability. However, at this point, until those reliable sources are added in and material written based off them, this article would have to be a stub. I think we are better served by scrapping this article and starting over from scratch, unless someone is willing to step in and make the necessary contributions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: It is important to note that several users have been improving the article and SplashScreen has been deleting their contributions in an attempt to game the system and eventually get the article deleted. This should be a fact to be considered by the closing admin when making the decision on wheter to keep or delete the article. — Hahc 21  20:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed statements with "citation needed" tags and removed statements sourced by unreliable blog sites . Please read edit summaries and assume good faith before throwing around allegations. SplashScreen (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you now?  Statυs (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Splash, you are involved in a edit warring against Status and Tomica, that will get you blocked, so be careful. Also, BLP says that unsourced content that may likely be challenged should be removed. I think that her bio won't be challenged, since it is not libellous. I recommed you to talk the matter before on thet talk page and then, after a consensus is reached, remove the content. — Hahc 21  21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not edit warring when WP:NOT3RR is involved. SplashScreen (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If you keep doing that, i will report you. Speaking is better than deleting information. Cheers. — Hahc 21  21:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If information about a living subject is unsourced and/or poorly sourced, then it should be removed. As an aspiring admin, it shocks me that you are unaware of this. SplashScreen (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please, don't play that old trick on me, it won't work. I'm not the one who has been rejected from ANI several times and asked to cool down. I know what BLP says and what 3RR says and you are close to violate 3RR. The fact that you are deleting content from the article while this AFD is open is a mere way to game the system. I won't comment further, i don't need to engage a fight with you, Splash. Cheers. — Hahc 21  21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? What policy tells that? Cause I have seen a lot of article contain the cn at the end of sentences. —  Tomica    (talk)  21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:BLP and remember (as you've been reminded on other AfDs) that other stuff exists. SplashScreen (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "as you've been reminded on other AfDs" and "As an aspiring admin, it shocks me that you are unaware of this." Seems as if you are taking personal digs in this now.  Statυs (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tomica, cn actually states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it: immediately remove it."  Statυs (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the GNG with extensive sections in several books. See Colapeninsula's detailed and informative comments.    Th e S te ve   06:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment article has been moved to Lady Starlight — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved this page accordingly.  Statυs (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 12.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep seems notable enough.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (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.