- 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. Star Mississippi 23:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Kris-Zaga
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kris-Zaga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Princess of Ara 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - promotional article by UPE editor. Onel5969 TT me 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Article not promotional, keep to encourage new editors, still being developed and similar to many (over 64k) [1] underdeveloped, not notable and or promotional articles in english wikipedia,(nigeria). Most of the cited articles below does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. example are but not limited to [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Aspaman ( talk) 20:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kindly see WP:ATA, Princess of Ara 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- Princess of Ara Thank you; As you recommend references i read and learn more, so much to learn and understand plus school works, This is my first ever article and i want to be a long time contributor here and i am pleading or begging everyone making a contribution to see this deletion process as a last resort, to give a chance for improvement, some subjects may not be notable when pages are created, as time goes on they might meet notability requirements and this is how many orphaned articles that i have seen on english wikipedia gets improved. I understand this process now, please do me a big favour to keep the article. Aspaman — Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The argument that we keep articles because someone might become notable later is ludicrous as policy explicitly states that we should delete in these situations. There is a reason why reviewers declined a draft on this subject three times. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 23:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
-
GPL93 -- what is the main reason why all the articles referenced above and over 64k orphaned articles still remained and not being considered for deletion? i've been studying these articles referenced; from the standards you mentioned, none of them meets notability. the recommendation for deletion is BIAS. please explain further and try to look at the referenced articles thanks. Also reviewers declined the draft for this article because it was not well written, secondly, copyright issues and these are good reasons. That is also to show you that this is a learning process; i believe an experienced editor may write it better and it be accepted just like the rest as referenced above. I am interested in understanding why some articles without notability get to stay and some that have been placed on others permanent watch list gets to be deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aspaman (
talk •
contribs)
06:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You do realize that an article being orphaned has literally nothing to do with notability right? Also please know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an article not to be deleted and failing notability standards was cited when each of the three different reviewers ( JavaHurricane, Princess of Ara, and Dan arndt) declined the draft article. GPL93 ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
-
GPL93 -- what is the main reason why all the articles referenced above and over 64k orphaned articles still remained and not being considered for deletion? i've been studying these articles referenced; from the standards you mentioned, none of them meets notability. the recommendation for deletion is BIAS. please explain further and try to look at the referenced articles thanks. Also reviewers declined the draft for this article because it was not well written, secondly, copyright issues and these are good reasons. That is also to show you that this is a learning process; i believe an experienced editor may write it better and it be accepted just like the rest as referenced above. I am interested in understanding why some articles without notability get to stay and some that have been placed on others permanent watch list gets to be deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aspaman (
talk •
contribs)
06:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes WP:Orphan has nothing to do with notability and orphaned tag was placed on it after draft was declined and the article was created again. The reference for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is clear and its summary to my understanding indicates that editors make the decision to leave articles or it is not noticed. Moreso, here is a background of why this subject or article was noticed and recommended for deletion by Princess of Ara ( JavaHurricane, Dan arndt) did not recommend deletion. And deletion policy according to Wikipedia should be seen as last resort.
- Background::
The article was started by another editor and did not pass approval but they did not recommend deletion. When I signed up to be an editor I was looking to see where to start and I saw this draft and decided to make corrections to help the editor, after first and second submission for approval, it was decline and at no point did they recommend deletion, the words were to look for reliable sources, improve and if no reliable sources the subject was not suitable for Wikipedia. This is standard and has been seen on several articles on english wikipedia which notifies all editors of improvements and reliable sources.
There has only been one request not 3 as you suggested for deletion. That occurred because I copied and pasted information from the subjects website instead of writing in my own words as suggested by princess of Ara. Princess of Ara immediately requested for the article’s speedy deletion while also recommending to re- write the article which I did and removed all copyright materials but still the deletion was done. When deletion occurred in draft I read about it as a new editor and Wikipedia says you can create the article again, hence I created it again and bearing in mind all changes that has been requested to be made. After draft, I studied why similar articles were left to stay and others don’t and I came across WP:Orphan and I saw this article meets that criteria. So it was tag as orphaned article. Soon after, same editors who were against it came back, suggesting the article was paid for amidst other issues just like many other articles on Wikipedia then After a week, Princess of Ara immediately put it up for deletion. All over Wikipedia it says deletion is last resort, various conditions are given to allow articles to stay WP:Orphan and I believe this article meets that criteria; also Wikipedia has suggested most orphaned articles can be improved and the orphaned tags removed, WP:DEORPHAN it is not ridiculous that i seem to make suggestions to leave articles until the subject becomes notable; it is a fact WP:DEORPHAN articles and suggestions on Wikipedia. Same treatment and discretions given to similar articles should be asserted for fairness. Aspaman ( talk) 16:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Do you not think that this article is at the point of last resort? You submitted this as a draft 3 times, it was rejected 3 times with not meeting notability standards cited each time. You decided to ignore them and one of the reviewers nominated the article for deletion when you tried to game the system and bypass the draft review process. They didn't recommend deletion previously because it was a draft and not an article in the main space. GPL93 ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Aspaman, I concur with everything @ GPL93 has said above. Your accusation of bias above is a Personal attack which I’m politely requesting that you strike through. Princess of Ara 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ GPL93 No i submitted it twice and @ Princess of Ara then nominated it for deletion because of copyright which i acknowledge she is right to do so. This also shows you how much struggle i have in trying to develop just one article and before i sleep and wake up it is deleted that is how i felt. meanwhile, other editors suggested to improve the article, Should we no longer try and improve articles? This is a learning process for me there is no gaming here unless what i read is not is obtainable simply maybe some editors have consensus over others?. @ GPL93 are you trying to suggest that WP:Orphan is a way to game the system? If so, Every editor also has the right to publish an article as an WP:Orphan and can make improvement then WP:DEORPHAN according to wikipedia policy. @ Princess of Ara I sincerely apologize for calling your nomination bias; sincerely. Like i said in your talk page, i do believe it is done in good faith; I just want to be heard. Otherwise i will loose interest in contributing on here. personally, I need someone to educate me why some articles get to stay! despite not meeting notability. "editors do not notice them for nomination deletion" is hard for me to graps. WP:Orphan. Imagine in a world where all disabled people are completely eliminated and only perfectly born persons get to live and enjoy the world. Aspaman ( talk) 21:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspaman ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete — Doesn’t meet NMUSIC, GNG, or BASIC. No, I do not believe I’m seeing anything of imperative encyclopedic value and notability is very shaky, I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this is mainspace worthy, I do however wish them the best in their career path. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:27, 21 January 2022 (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.
- 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. Star Mississippi 23:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Kris-Zaga
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kris-Zaga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Princess of Ara 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - promotional article by UPE editor. Onel5969 TT me 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Article not promotional, keep to encourage new editors, still being developed and similar to many (over 64k) [1] underdeveloped, not notable and or promotional articles in english wikipedia,(nigeria). Most of the cited articles below does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. example are but not limited to [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Aspaman ( talk) 20:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kindly see WP:ATA, Princess of Ara 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- Princess of Ara Thank you; As you recommend references i read and learn more, so much to learn and understand plus school works, This is my first ever article and i want to be a long time contributor here and i am pleading or begging everyone making a contribution to see this deletion process as a last resort, to give a chance for improvement, some subjects may not be notable when pages are created, as time goes on they might meet notability requirements and this is how many orphaned articles that i have seen on english wikipedia gets improved. I understand this process now, please do me a big favour to keep the article. Aspaman — Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The argument that we keep articles because someone might become notable later is ludicrous as policy explicitly states that we should delete in these situations. There is a reason why reviewers declined a draft on this subject three times. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 23:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
-
GPL93 -- what is the main reason why all the articles referenced above and over 64k orphaned articles still remained and not being considered for deletion? i've been studying these articles referenced; from the standards you mentioned, none of them meets notability. the recommendation for deletion is BIAS. please explain further and try to look at the referenced articles thanks. Also reviewers declined the draft for this article because it was not well written, secondly, copyright issues and these are good reasons. That is also to show you that this is a learning process; i believe an experienced editor may write it better and it be accepted just like the rest as referenced above. I am interested in understanding why some articles without notability get to stay and some that have been placed on others permanent watch list gets to be deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aspaman (
talk •
contribs)
06:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You do realize that an article being orphaned has literally nothing to do with notability right? Also please know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an article not to be deleted and failing notability standards was cited when each of the three different reviewers ( JavaHurricane, Princess of Ara, and Dan arndt) declined the draft article. GPL93 ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
-
GPL93 -- what is the main reason why all the articles referenced above and over 64k orphaned articles still remained and not being considered for deletion? i've been studying these articles referenced; from the standards you mentioned, none of them meets notability. the recommendation for deletion is BIAS. please explain further and try to look at the referenced articles thanks. Also reviewers declined the draft for this article because it was not well written, secondly, copyright issues and these are good reasons. That is also to show you that this is a learning process; i believe an experienced editor may write it better and it be accepted just like the rest as referenced above. I am interested in understanding why some articles without notability get to stay and some that have been placed on others permanent watch list gets to be deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aspaman (
talk •
contribs)
06:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes WP:Orphan has nothing to do with notability and orphaned tag was placed on it after draft was declined and the article was created again. The reference for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is clear and its summary to my understanding indicates that editors make the decision to leave articles or it is not noticed. Moreso, here is a background of why this subject or article was noticed and recommended for deletion by Princess of Ara ( JavaHurricane, Dan arndt) did not recommend deletion. And deletion policy according to Wikipedia should be seen as last resort.
- Background::
The article was started by another editor and did not pass approval but they did not recommend deletion. When I signed up to be an editor I was looking to see where to start and I saw this draft and decided to make corrections to help the editor, after first and second submission for approval, it was decline and at no point did they recommend deletion, the words were to look for reliable sources, improve and if no reliable sources the subject was not suitable for Wikipedia. This is standard and has been seen on several articles on english wikipedia which notifies all editors of improvements and reliable sources.
There has only been one request not 3 as you suggested for deletion. That occurred because I copied and pasted information from the subjects website instead of writing in my own words as suggested by princess of Ara. Princess of Ara immediately requested for the article’s speedy deletion while also recommending to re- write the article which I did and removed all copyright materials but still the deletion was done. When deletion occurred in draft I read about it as a new editor and Wikipedia says you can create the article again, hence I created it again and bearing in mind all changes that has been requested to be made. After draft, I studied why similar articles were left to stay and others don’t and I came across WP:Orphan and I saw this article meets that criteria. So it was tag as orphaned article. Soon after, same editors who were against it came back, suggesting the article was paid for amidst other issues just like many other articles on Wikipedia then After a week, Princess of Ara immediately put it up for deletion. All over Wikipedia it says deletion is last resort, various conditions are given to allow articles to stay WP:Orphan and I believe this article meets that criteria; also Wikipedia has suggested most orphaned articles can be improved and the orphaned tags removed, WP:DEORPHAN it is not ridiculous that i seem to make suggestions to leave articles until the subject becomes notable; it is a fact WP:DEORPHAN articles and suggestions on Wikipedia. Same treatment and discretions given to similar articles should be asserted for fairness. Aspaman ( talk) 16:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Do you not think that this article is at the point of last resort? You submitted this as a draft 3 times, it was rejected 3 times with not meeting notability standards cited each time. You decided to ignore them and one of the reviewers nominated the article for deletion when you tried to game the system and bypass the draft review process. They didn't recommend deletion previously because it was a draft and not an article in the main space. GPL93 ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Aspaman, I concur with everything @ GPL93 has said above. Your accusation of bias above is a Personal attack which I’m politely requesting that you strike through. Princess of Ara 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ GPL93 No i submitted it twice and @ Princess of Ara then nominated it for deletion because of copyright which i acknowledge she is right to do so. This also shows you how much struggle i have in trying to develop just one article and before i sleep and wake up it is deleted that is how i felt. meanwhile, other editors suggested to improve the article, Should we no longer try and improve articles? This is a learning process for me there is no gaming here unless what i read is not is obtainable simply maybe some editors have consensus over others?. @ GPL93 are you trying to suggest that WP:Orphan is a way to game the system? If so, Every editor also has the right to publish an article as an WP:Orphan and can make improvement then WP:DEORPHAN according to wikipedia policy. @ Princess of Ara I sincerely apologize for calling your nomination bias; sincerely. Like i said in your talk page, i do believe it is done in good faith; I just want to be heard. Otherwise i will loose interest in contributing on here. personally, I need someone to educate me why some articles get to stay! despite not meeting notability. "editors do not notice them for nomination deletion" is hard for me to graps. WP:Orphan. Imagine in a world where all disabled people are completely eliminated and only perfectly born persons get to live and enjoy the world. Aspaman ( talk) 21:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspaman ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete — Doesn’t meet NMUSIC, GNG, or BASIC. No, I do not believe I’m seeing anything of imperative encyclopedic value and notability is very shaky, I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this is mainspace worthy, I do however wish them the best in their career path. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:27, 21 January 2022 (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.