Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Ian Andersen (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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Ian Andersen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think it's about time for a second AfD. The first was in 2007, and had only two participants. Since then, the article has remained a spam piece, and really doesn't establish notability; upon a search, I couldn't find anything useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's successfully advertised all over en.wikipedia for years. We can spend a week discussing it or someone can clean it up. Discussion seems to be preferable to clean up, but I don't know why five minutes of editing is so low on the scale of things to do. Pseudofusulina (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand your rationale; because the article has been here for years, it means he's notable? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article was discussed and kept before. What about the two keeps that cited sources? Did those sources disappear? Is it bad to have spam on en.wikipedia? I think so. It should be removed. But these discussions here (Articles For Deletion) don't seem to lead to cleaning out spam. I don't understand why you didn't remove the spam before drawing undue attention to this. I don't understand why only this article and not all its related spamvertising should be deleted.

It seems that this is about this discussion, not about the article at all. I think it's a waste of time that could be spent improving articles. These discussions also seem to be about deleting most of South Asia from en.wikipedia, but that's another story. Anyway, it seems pointless. It's spam. The spam wasn't bad enough to be deleted. It's attached to other spam that wasn't even nominated. Improve it. That's my vote. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable enough; the sources in question don't, to me, demonstrate notability. That it went through AfD and was kept once doesn't mean much; see WP:Articles for deletion/William Andrew Dunckelman (2nd nomination) and the associated first AfD as an example. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually the third AfD. The other two were kept for lack of participation rather than on policy. I don't think the two sem-reliable sources I found (Allmusic, IMDB) add up to a roaring career success that meets WP:BAND and WP:BLP. And check 'what links here' and get rid of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find only one mention in an independent reliable source (including searches using KIA) [1]. This is not enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. I think a previous editor had it right about WP being used for advertising, as articles have been created for KIA's recordings too, none of which seem to meet WP:NALBUMS, such as F-1 Papillons - 'Best Of' K.I.A. & Shinjuku Zulu; DXLR8 - Downtempo 'Best Of' K.I.A. & Shinjuku Zulu, Sonorous Susurrus, Adieu Shinjuku Zulu, Kiss the Honey, Honey, Various Chimeras , Shinjuku Zulu. Should we add these to the this deletion request, and do it as a group? Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Some other sources have been found, which is good but several of them are of pretty poor quality. "Popmatters" advertises for submissions, for example; the Radio 3 website is one that anybody can sign up for, [2] and the very short reviews in a local alternative weekly (Exclaim) don't really make a significant claim either. But overall, the rest is enough to push the notability of this artist over the edge for me. Assuming the article is kept, I agree with the suggestion below that the albums and songs themselves don't meet the grade and any sourced information should be merged into the artist's article. And User:Neuphoria, who has commented below and who shares the same name as K.I.A's record label (which in itself doubles as K.I.A's website[3]), needs to stop using WP as a means of publicity. Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim is a monthly music magazine, not an alternative weekly. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with alternative weeklies. Sources don't have to make claims, they have to cover the subject significantly. Anything worth citing in a decent article on the subject, then, is clearly significant. The independent detailed descriptions and opinions on the quality of the music in the Exclaim reviews obviously fall under this catagory. I'm surprised an article writer of some note would speed by such considerations. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Per ~~Kud and SLP~~.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, per demonstrated coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Confirm finding by SLP that Google search yields precious little in terms of substantial independent coverage. Also share suspicions that this article was created as part of an aggressive spamming campaign, and that this article is only the tip of the iceberg. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep huh? He's been covered in Exclaim![4][5] and allmusic.[6] Both are accepted RS's. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by 86.44.38.30, a third Exclaim! article [7], a review in PopMatters [8], plus the the Toronto Star article linked above by User:Slp1. Whether his albums warrant individual articles is debatable; the subject himself meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 01:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND # 1. Three album reviews in Exclaim! and a review from Popmatters (both on the music project RS list Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) is sufficient grounds to keep per WP:BAND. The write-up in the Toronto Star again sufficient for WP:GNG. Google is not a proper "search" tool to use. I didn't get to do a search; I cited the article. Argolin (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews in major national publications Globe and Mail, [9] and [10] as well as the Toronto Star, etc etc. Also, a major-label artist (Sheryl Crow), covered a song of his, released on a William Shatner recording [11] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuphoria (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sources, passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND#1. And, about the current state of the article, "AFD is not cleanup". Cavarrone (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might borderline-meet wp:notability. But the whole network of articles on him and his work looks like a wiki-saavy PR machine project/construction trying to make a big Wikipedia position out of little notability. What it really needs is probably to take all of the articles on him/his works and condense them into one article on the artist. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguments that the subject lacks coverage in reliable sources have been demonstrated to be incorrect. The subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BAND via the coverage identified.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.