Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Lukas
- 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Kim Lukas (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)
Kim Lukas is just not notable singer with independent sources. I knew about this singer because, after seeing the video for Blue by Eiffel 65, I was seeing what other music video Blisscomedia did. It turns out one of their works was for the video for "All I Really Want" by Kim Lukas. So when looking at her wikipedia article, I decided to do some expanding to it, but when looking for independent sources about this artist, I was out of luck. Just because an artist had at least one song do well on the charts does not REALLY make her notable. It just suggests she may be, which this is not the case. EditorE (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as she quite spectacularly passes the second criterium of WP:MUSICBIO, she has not just "had a single on any country's national music chart", she had two singles which were international hits through several European and Canadian charts. I would surely had considered deletion for someone who fulfill the criterium in a borderline way, but cases like these make me leaning towards a very sure keep. Cavarrone 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. She meets the only two criteria that really make any sense when building an encyclopedia - (a) she (clearly) has sufficient significance and relevance, and (b) we can verify that from reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2013 (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.