Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 27 March 2013

Camille and Kennerly Kitt

Camille and Kennerly Kitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject of article is not notable, the article itself reads like a press release, includes irrelevant references, and misrepresents the references it does have. "Their music has been featured in worldwide mainstream media such as CBS News, The Huffington Post, The Huffington Post UK, The Huffington Post Chicago, National Geographic, BuzzFeed, The Soup, College Humor, Nintendo Life, and Yahoo! Music Canada." This statement is clearly not true, especially if one clicks through to Yahoo music link, which is just a random blog on yahoo music. The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos. (And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowtheory (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 March 2013‎

• Comment: This was not originally put in exactly right, so I fixed the nomination.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let it be known that the AFD action taken by Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) does not appear to have been done in good faith since she has stated on her talk page that she has no opinion on the matter, totally ignoring the guidelines listed at WP:AFD. Contrary to what this user stated above, she did not fix the nomination proposed by Knowtheory because this other user had chosen the WP:PROD approach instead. Since Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) claims on her talk page to be a very experienced Wikipedian, I believe she owes us an explanation for her behavior. Dontreader (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let it be known that Toykogirl has over 17,500 edits whereas Dontreader has in the neighborhood of 150. Perhaps someone around here knows whats going on. From the various contribution histories, it appears as though Knowtheory attempted to place the Afd here but didn't know how to do it right.(diff) Tokyogirl79 simply did her job as an administrator and a Wikipedian and formatted the Afd properly. It's best to drop the unwarranted attacks on Tokyogirl79. Location (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let it be known that the number of edits is irrelevant it's the quality that matters and just because you are an administrator should not mean that you can make false statements. The original template gave me the right to delete it and so I did I also gave reasons, so please explain, how that is vandalism. The vandalism was done by you Tokyogirl79 as the original template stated that it could be removed and another should not be put in its place, so way was one added. I vote that Tokyogirl79 should lose her administrator rights Robcamstone (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• The three of you, stop it. This is not relevant to the discussion. You're also incorrect, by the way - look at the time this was brought to AfD, and when Tokyogirl79 tagged the article - I think you should apologize, Robcamstone and Dontreader. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I sincerely apologize to Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) for questioning her good faith. The information I have from the history of the page indicates that Knowtheory used a PROD approach, and later Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) switched it to an AFD. I had no other information to determine that it was Knowtheory who turned the situation into an AFD and opened this discussion page before Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) merely corrected the template on the article proposed for deletion. Thanks to Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) for pointing out my mistake. Again, I'm very sorry for implying that Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) may have acted inappropriately. I deeply regret this situation.

• I vote against deletion

Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. This article provides a large number of references and external links to prove notability and no attempt has been made by any editors to misrepresent links to create notability. All links are to valid sources.

If you read the comments on this articles talk page you will see the concerns the individual editors have had about proving notability. Constitutive advice and help would be more valid then an attempt to delete an article.

A list of the claimed miss represented references should have been posted so that editors could check and amend/fix any miss representations, if they exist.

Not clear how you can claim that The Huffington Post, CBS News Chicago Tribune and National Geographic are not valid.

The point about the discography section is not clear at all. They are a harp duet and their singles are all covers as listed, where is the problem with listing their singles even if they are covers?

I can see no reason for deleting an article just because it is yet to be completed. On that bases Misplaced Pages would have very little information and would have die out years ago.

The article and its talk page could do with being movied to Camille and Kennerly without the Kitt at the end as when searching Misplaced Pages for them it is unlikely a user would type in Camille and Kennerly kitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamstone (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - there's a huge amount of fluff in there that needs cleaning, but I think they may well pass WP:GNG. I'll evaluate it later. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Should NOT be deleted

This article was created in December 2011, and had never been proposed for deletion. One can argue that the article needs improvement, but I cannot believe that here I am spending time to defend a page just because someone arbitrarily proposed it for deletion. Let's examine the arguments put forth by Knowtheory

1. "Subject of article is not notable"

This is an article about a biography of living persons; therefore, the subject of the article must be the living persons (Camille and Kennerly Kitt). Hence, you must be able to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. Exactly which parameters/guidelines are you using for your claim?

2. "the article itself reads like a press release"

I disagree entirely. That's just your opinion. Besides, even if you were hypothetically correct, please provide a Misplaced Pages link which states that an article that reads like a press release should be considered for deletion. There are articles on Misplaced Pages that are biographies of living persons, which I have encountered, that do read like press releases, and have not been deleted.

3. "includes irrelevant references"

You did not specify which ones, and besides, since when do articles get proposed for deletion because they have included irrelevant references?

4. "and misrepresents the references it does have."

That is a false statement. You cited one reference to claim that the article in general misrepresents the references it does have. If you question the validity of the Yahoo! Canada source, we can debate that, and, as I said, the article can be improved, but your assertion is false. There are plenty of excellent references. So far, you have not provided a single reason for drastically proposing this article for deletion.

5. "The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos."

This statement makes no sense at all. If a completely independent news website featuring the artists happens to include links to their YouTube videos (as is the case with Nintendo Life and CBS News), why is that wrong? Which Misplaced Pages guideline states that such a situation constitutes a reason for proposing the deletion of an article?

6. "And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers"

Again, provide a Misplaced Pages link with a guideline stating that if an artist performs covers of songs, and not original material, that artist is not worthy of a Misplaced Pages page.

Now, I'd like to ask the Misplaced Pages community if there is anything that can be done in the future to prevent random users from proposing the arbitrary deletion of a page. This was such a waste of time for me and naturally for the community members that have to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Any advice on how to improve the article is most welcome. Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - appears to pass WP:GNG based on sources in the article (namely, those from the Huffington Post, of which there are plenty, the CBS News piece, and the more reliable of the smaller circulation papers in the article), they have had a supporting role in a film (not enough on its own to meet any guideline, but it helps) and have been featured modelling in at least the cover of Nat Geo. They also appear to have had a fairly notable modelling career, IF someone can find a decent ref for the following sentence, taken from their About page: "for three consecutive years, Camille and Kennerly were cast as live runway models for Seventeen Magazine/JC Penney at “Rock Your Prom” fashion events." This article needs nuking of some rubbish, and some references are indeed inappropriately used, but as far as I can establish, this is a notable duet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates