Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kym Campbell

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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kym Campbell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Originally a music bio, but was re-written in 2019 to reflect her work as an online health coach.

Falls short of meeting WP:SINGER, and there is little coverage of her current work from reliable sources. KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources cited are blatantly non-RS, subject appears non-notable. - Scarpy (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changing vote. I believe she's notable as a singer-songwriter (thanks shaidar cuebiyar), none of her fertility coaching has good sourcing and I removed it from the article. - Scarpy (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the sources are unreliable, mostly podcasts, about a fad diet. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a singer-songwriter the artist issued three albums (2 EPs, 1 full-length) and toured Australia at least three times. I've added a Music career section with sources. Passes WP:MUSICBIO#1, #4.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would encourage everyone to take a closer look at the references. MUSICBIO #1 states that the person should be subject to "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." (emphasis added). I don't think that these sources rise up to that standard. Ref #1: passing mention, Ref #4 appears to be a surfboard review blog (not WP:RS). Now, I'm not familiar the Australian music scene but it's debatable whether "The Brag" and "Buzz Magazine" are reputable sources either.-KH-1 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KH-1 if you turn the knobs for the operational definition thresholds of “multiple” and “nontrivial” you can make a lot of Wikipedia articles appear or disappear. My definition of multiple follows the dictionary, meaning more than one. I think something is non-trival if it gives more context than a directory, for example more context than what you would get from looking something up in the yellow pages. If there are two such cases of that, then I call it notable. Some people turn the multiple and nontrivial knobs higher, but I believe that’s persuasive redefinition. You could say “well, there’s only three books from university publishers on this topic, so that’s just barely notable” and the argument is still the same, it’s just using the vagaries of English to interpret the threshold in a different way. So the only rational approach to me seems to define them in the most bedrock parsimonious way. Which also has the advantage of being the least ambiguous. Everything else is just a “my higher threshold is better than your lower threshold for reasons.” Which is fine, but at that point it’s just a subjective “how high is up?” 3rd grade debate masquerading as very serious people having a very serious discussion. - Scarpy (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all relative anyways, but my interpretation happens to be correct because I follow the dictionary definition. It's not saying much at all. Also, you've side-stepped by main concern, which is whether the sources are both SIGCOV and WP:RS.-KH-1 (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nontrivial is exactly what significant coverage is about, and you'll find I mentioned in three times in my response to you. Try reading it like Gary Alford would. - Scarpy (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:KH-1 I dispute your contentions that mentions of the artist are trivial or sources used are not reliable. You admit lack of familiarity with Australian music scene. FYI, The Brag is a "national online publisher with a history spanning two decades, which was formerly published by Furst Media." (2007) (see here), while Buzz Magazine Australia was established in 1993 in Melbourne (see here). I believe both are independent of the artist, have editorial review, have existed for over ten years and hence are reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Those references are non-references. They are junk. scope_creep^Talk 15:58, 31 October 2021 (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.