Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord KraVen


 * 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. SpinningSpark 19:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lord KraVen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable celeb lacking non-trivial support. References are all minor in nature, lacks secondary references. Fails notability and associated guidelines. red dog six (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"KEEP" @RedDogsix ….Lord KraVen aka "Tionne" is a notable public figure. As a singer and songwriter, music has appeared on major television networks such Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance". He also made guest-star appearances on Emmy Award-winning television series, "The Young & The Restless", "Days Of Our Lives" and More. Please view his imdb page under Tionne Williams. In addition, as a recording artist, he has made special guest appearances [as a commentator] on KTLA 5 Morning Show {Los Angeles] for HIS Grammy Award Predictions for 2013 & 2014. He has also appeared on HLN's ShowBiz Tonight [National Syndicated Show] [All videos can be found online and on YouTube for review]. As an entertainer, KraVen has been featured in TOP/Reputable print publications "Cosmopolitan Magazine" and "Star Magazine" for his style and music in the "Celebrity Column" alongside "Rihanna", "Miley Cyrus", and "Hugh Jackman" just to name a few. [The Article/Vol. info has been noted on the page to support the mention]. In closing, Lord KraVen, has more than 10 Million Music Streams Worldwide and Two Top 5 Hits to his credit. He is has been invited on numerous occasions as a "celebrity" guest to THE MOST prestigious events such, The "Grammy Awards", "American Music Awards", "BET Awards", "People's Choice Awards", "NAACP Image Awards". Anyone who know the politics of the music and film industry know, that invitations to such events are hand picked {Red Carpet photos to mentioned events can be found online and at celebrity stock photo sites "Getty Images", "WireImage", "FilmMagic", "Associated Press", "Zimbio", "PrPhotos", "CelebrityPhotos" and More]. So, please explain to me how Lord KraVen is a "non-notable celeb"? The credits, top Networks and Publications mentioned above are "Mainstream" outlets that are reserved for "celebrities/stars" and should be respected as such. BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did some searching and other than a few mentions here and there (mostly in relation to his tiff with Jennifer Hudson), there isn't any true coverage for KraVen. He has received some coverage for his fashion, but it's WP:TRIVIAL in scope and doesn't show the depth of coverage that we need. As far as his filmography as a whole goes, none of the roles are large enough to count per WP:NACTOR. They're all fairly trivial and aren't considered to be the type of thing that would merit a keep on that basis alone. Being an extra or being asked to come into a local TV channel to talk about the Grammys isn't enough by itself to give notability- the unsaid thing about having notable roles is that it's assumed that the individual will receive coverage in reliable sources. The same thing can be said about his music- I can't find any coverage about his singles. Being popular or selling well doesn't count towards notability in and of itself (WP:POPULAR), we would still require coverage in reliable sources. Overall, all I can find is that while he has been invited to places (and being on the invite list does not count towards notability because of the sheer amount of people who do get invited to such events) and is known, he hasn't received any actual in-depth coverage that would prove that he passes our notability guidelines. The only coverage he has received has been in relation to a blowup he had with a notable person and that's not what we'd consider indepth coverage. Plus, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by him having known Hudson. Sorry, but he fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd also recommend the deletion of the userspace article at User:MICHAELMOO22/sandbox. Part of the issue I have is that it's not only written in a promotional manner, but it's written in a tabloid type setup that is a little too overly sensational for my tastes. It could be seen as an attack against one or both persons involved, although the promotional tone of the overall article makes it come across as more salacious as far as Hudson is concerned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend salting the article since this seems to have been repeatedly re-created (see Tionne Williams). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd also recommend the deletion of the userspace article at User:MICHAELMOO22/sandbox. Part of the issue I have is that it's not only written in a promotional manner, but it's written in a tabloid type setup that is a little too overly sensational for my tastes. It could be seen as an attack against one or both persons involved, although the promotional tone of the overall article makes it come across as more salacious as far as Hudson is concerned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

KEEP --BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) ….This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...From speculation of the alleged non-eligibility of Lord KraVen's page, According to WP:NMUSIC WP:MUSBIO WP:BLP1E and a few other codes, a wikipedia page on Lord KraVen does meet the criteria. I have done some research under the name Lord KraVen and Tionne just now myself and found his body of work to be modest and respectful. Such work in my opinion, warrants a wiki page due to his "Expert" commentating and appearance as an "Artist" on major broadcast networks. As for the "celebrity" feud between Lord and Jennifer Hudson, that sort of stuff happens EVERYDAY. It appears that the claims against this page are stemming from a more personal perception of Lord KraVen from wiki users RedDogSix, MICHAELMOO22/sandbox etc. I don't find shooting down someone's solid body of work respectful nor professional. I don't see this page being used to sensational the events of Jennifer Hudson & Lord KraVen. It was a major headline during its time that is still document all over the web, and I don't think Jennifer nor Lord can totally erase the events of that moment in time. Its done, but it happened to be huge scandal in pop culture. Just my opinion. I do remember seeing the headline of Jennifer Hudson Vs Lord KraVen on the page of Yahoo! and trending all over the web. In addition, I have done research on his fan base, he appears to have an upwards of 50,000+(which is pretty impressive and substantial for a new artist) which is also a criteria under the WP:NMUSIC for musicians. Maybe the wiki page can use some adjusting, but don't think it should be sent for speedy deletion. Again my opinion. BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Your keep rationale and the way you phrase things looks suspiciously similar to how the IP addressed phrased their keep argument. Please understand that deletion is not decided on a vote but on the strength of the argument, and that you should only make one bolded "keep" argument. If you are the same person, please make sure to post that you are the same editor, otherwise it can be seen as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and can lead to you getting blocked from editing if a WP:SPI shows that someone is trying to edit with multiple accounts to give off the impression of a lot of people voting. I'm not saying that you are, just trying to let you know that there are ways of checking. Also, the size of a fanbase does not automatically mean that the person is notable. We still need coverage in reliable sources in order to show notability for KraVen or his fanbase, which is lacking. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Now when it comes to the whole celebrity feud, that didn't seem to be notable enough to warrant a keep on that basis alone or even really a mention on Hudson's page. Most feuds aren't, to be honest and it's rare that we'd have enough to merit a mention in an article or on its own page. Like you said, such things happen everyday and most of the time are hyped up because they happened on slow news days, are "tabloid fodder", or because one or both of the people involved want the coverage. It all boils down to coverage, which KraVen lacks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now as far as claims of personal bias go, please be careful about making those claims because more often than not, saying that someone is doing this because of a personal bias actually works against you more than for you. You have to prove that they are doing this for personal reasons, otherwise it's just an unwarranted accusation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom + Tokyogirl79 - No evidence of any notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  08:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

KEEP. I am not going to use this forum to go tick for tack. Again, I don't think you are fully reading ALL of the different acceptable criteria's. According to WP:NMUSIC. Lord KraVen's info that he or whoever has submitted has been verified by supported links on the page. I really don't see what your issue is in accepting the verifiable links. is he a HUGE celebrity No, {not that i can see} but is he a Celebrity?, Apparently. The verifiable sources linked on the page has made that clear. and YES one of the acceptable criteria's for a musician is "a large fan base or cult following" however it does not state a number. In addition, as a musician, music featured on a National and International Television broadcast such as Fox "So You Think You Can Dance" (that has a huge cult following and millions of viewership) is reputable. The actual Show segment/clip I found on YouTube, shows proof by the subtitle the show added during the airing of the Live telecast. "Lord KraVen - Mirror Mirror". A Platform that massive can and has generated huge notoriety for established and emerging artists.BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

using sources such as "Tumblr" for "notable" sources. Can someone please explain to me how subsequent appearances on KTLA 5, a news network, is more notable than Tumblr? And not only that, but being hand picked to attend events such as the Grammy's, iHeartRadioAwards2014, etc? The sources listed at the bottom of the page are more than enough proof that Lord KraVen has enough media leverage to be deemed a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MICHAELMOO22 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — MICHAELMOO22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP Is Lord Kraven Lady Gaga? No. But I fail to see how the sources listed are not "notable" enough to classify him as a celebrity, when celebrity pages such as Brooke Candy can stay up.


 * All Keep votes above are all by one person so I've striked 3/4. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Davey2010 Again, I ask that you please refrain from augmenting and the removing of my comments. Your response to my comments have no merit and are false accusations. Please conduct yourself in professional manner. This is a professional forum. My comments that I have posted are signed by me and displays my username BrandonWalker2014 (UTC). Your behavior in striking my right to comment is unethical, disrespectful and unprofessional. You have made it clear that you disapprove of the Lord KraVen page (for whatever biased reason) now please move on and let the powers that be decide the fate of the page.BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BrandonWalker, please understand: You can comment here as often as you like, but you may only use the boldface word "keep" once. Later comments from you can be prefaced with Comment or something like that, or simply indented under whoever you are replying to. I am striking out your duplicate "keep" vote above; Davey2010 was correct to strike your earlier duplicate votes. Also, I am going to delete the warning you put on Davey's talk page; he has done nothing disruptive, he is merely enforcing Wikipedia policy for this type of discussion. You are the one who is being disruptive with your challenges and insults to other users. Please focus on the question of whether the subject here meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which are somewhat more strict that simply saying "he is notable." --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Melanie, Thank you for taking the time to inform me of my error in using the "Keep" more than once. I will admit, I am new to this. However, an explanation of such, as you so respectful left, would have been more appropriate from Davey2010. In addition, the false accusation of me making comments under false alias is absurd. I will not tolerate that sort of attack. So Yes, he has been rude and disruptive. And for also "deleting" my comments and augmenting them. That is Unacceptable. However, I will allow the your strike through of the additional keeps above minus one. Thank you! BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You might wish to review the Guide to deletion, which contains a great deal of useful information about procedures at WP:Articles for deletion. As to why one source is considered reliable and another is not, take a look at Identifying reliable sources. Also, the discussions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard can be quite illuminating. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom., Tokyogirl79 and Davey2010, coverage is not significant in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (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.