Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korektphool
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, possible vanity. Delete. Davelong 13:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as said in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, lack of wide fame is no reason for deletion. This can hardly be called vanity, and is very unlikely that this 'Korektphool' wrote it himself as it is not very flattering. 12:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Dpherson
- Unsigned comment by User:138.130.160.24. The Dpherson signature was probably typed by hand, not through ~~~~. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I do apologise it logged me out. I've never done this before, so forgive me. Dpherson 13:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Unsigned comment by User:138.130.160.24. The Dpherson signature was probably typed by hand, not through ~~~~. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, in all honesty there is absolutly no reason for the deletion of this article. I believe everyone has the right to write about what they want as long as it does not insult, degrade, or offend another person or organisation. Personal opinions are alson not to be disregarded. Hence i believe that there must be a balance between free speech and offence to another. This article has minimal offence to "Korektphool" while informing the responder of this young rapers beginings. As the only reason i can see for deleting any article is offencive language, and this article certainly contains none, i must conclude that there is no reason to delete this article. 11:18, 1 Apr 2005 DGayed
- Comment: To put it bluntly, no one here cares if you see or don't see any reasons besides from "offensive language". We have guidelines. Take a look at them. Sarg 13:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: And by those guidelines, what is the reason for deletion? The two reasons given have been 'vanity' and 'not notable'. It is a stretch to call it 'vanity' as the article does not glorify the artist, and his music is available outside the 'playground' via the WWW. And to quote Wikipedia:Vanity page, "lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." Dpherson 06:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You almost caught me there :) But I think the concepts of fame and notability are not exactly the same. This subject is non-notable because no one is going to look at WP searching for it (except for Korektphool and his college budies). This makes the article practically useless. If WP had to have an article for every teenager who had a music group, it would be a failure as an Encyclopedia. Sarg 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I do agree lol. Dpherson 11:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You almost caught me there :) But I think the concepts of fame and notability are not exactly the same. This subject is non-notable because no one is going to look at WP searching for it (except for Korektphool and his college budies). This makes the article practically useless. If WP had to have an article for every teenager who had a music group, it would be a failure as an Encyclopedia. Sarg 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Calling him a "young raper" (rather than "rapper"), as DGayed did above, might be considered offensive. VfD isn't about free speech issues, it's about meeting guidelines including established significance. Somebody who's talented but so fresh they haven't signed a recording deal, completed a national tour, or garnered reviews in major publications is not yet WP-worthy. Resubmit the article when Korektphool gets his own TV series. Weak delete pending evidence of noteworthiness beyond his high-school buddies. Barno 14:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: And by those guidelines, what is the reason for deletion? The two reasons given have been 'vanity' and 'not notable'. It is a stretch to call it 'vanity' as the article does not glorify the artist, and his music is available outside the 'playground' via the WWW. And to quote Wikipedia:Vanity page, "lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." Dpherson 06:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: To put it bluntly, no one here cares if you see or don't see any reasons besides from "offensive language". We have guidelines. Take a look at them. Sarg 13:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep If this is vanity, why is it negative?
- Another unsigned comment by by User:138.130.160.24. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh I just read that you are only supposed to write once. Sorry Dpherson 13:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Another unsigned comment by by User:138.130.160.24. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Music is available internationally, through internet, Here, not personally authored. And 'vanity' is very doubtful considering the article is largely critical of the artist.
- Yet another unsigned comment by by User:138.130.160.24. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- According to the article, Korektphool is 15 or 16 years old. "Limited audiences, mainly classmates" indicates that he is not really a rapper, he just wants to become one. Schoolboy vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The sentence: "The world trembles in anticipation for Korektphool's next release" should be enough. Sarg 16:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I Think this has been misinterpreted, this was surely a negative slur againts the artist.
- Unsigned comment by 211.31.46.110. That is beside the point. When people call the article "vanity" here, they mean that it was probably written by Korektphool himself, or a personal acquitance of his. This implies that you would have to know Korektphool personally to even have heard of him or his rapper career. He is not objectively notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. The Wikipedian term "vanity" is not limited to putting in a good light, critical or insulting pages count as vanity as well. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I Think this has been misinterpreted, this was surely a negative slur againts the artist.
- Delete, not notable, vanity. At least he's honest enough to admit he is "minor" in the opening sentence. Megan1967 00:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, It seems to me this guy has some talent, perhaps people should listen to his music before calling him vain! In adding to this comment I made before, I must also respond to others which have said that this artist does not have a record deal. In regard to commercial success, there are many reason why this cannot be obtained, clearly talent is not the largest factor in it! There is also how the artist is appealing to people (that is, how they look) and sadly it is a fact of life that people of other nationalities may not be as recognised as 'majority' races; this guy is just honestly trying to get a break in life. I’m, of course, not blaming anyone for this, its just how the life works. And I’m sure people don’t need to be reminded of the likes of Ashlee Simpson to question if she should be called vain.
- Unsigned comment by User:211.31.46.110. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. -- Dcfleck 17:31, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
- Delete. NN, does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. I manually restored Davelong's original nomination at the top. VladMV ٭ talk 14:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable, sock supported. --InShaneee 14:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines --Carnildo 23:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.