Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Urhahn

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 of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Urhahn

Non-notable artist with doubtful fan base. Delete. -- Perfecto  20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN vanity. - Sensor 13:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Enh...she was in a notable-enough band (Lillix). I'm kind of torn as to whether individual band members should have articles in this case or not, though -- there are some cases where it's legitimate and some where it isn't, but I'm just not sure what side of that dividing line Lillix falls on. Bearcat 09:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Torn? Read WP:BIO and WP:NMG and be untorn. -- Perfecto  16:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither one of those at all addresses the question of how big a band has to be before its members merit their own individual articles separate from the band's article. Bearcat 19:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Bearcat, as far as I know, band members are musicians. As such, WP:BIO and WP:NMG apply. Fair enough? -- Perfecto  23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, band members are musicians -- the point is that the policies don't differentiate between "solo musicians" and "musicians who were in bands". If the band meets the stated criteria, then by definition she meets the stated criteria by virtue of having been in a band that meets the stated criteria. Neither policy suggests any viable way to subdivide notable bands into "notable enough to have separate entries for each individual member in addition to the band article" from "only notable enough to have an article on the band itself". Richard Parry, for example, survived a VfD in June specifically on the grounds that if The Arcade Fire was notable enough for an article, then that band's members were notable enough for articles by virtue of being in a notable band -- so that's the precedent I'm working from here. Bearcat 00:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Parry's nom page shows other reasons. I'm sorry Bearcat; are you comparing Richard Parry to Kim Urhahn? Parry's article demonstrates notability for reasons other than being in TAF -- a media interview, for example. Yes, policies don't differentiate, yes, neither policies suggest ways to subdivide bands — so I'm looking at Urhahn as a musician — as per WP:BIO and WP:NMG, is she notable as one? -- Perfecto  00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If she was in a band that met the NMG criteria, then she meets the MNG criteria by virtue of having been in a band that met the NMG criteria. I simply don't see how Wikipedia policy makes it at all possible to say otherwise. Bearcat 01:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The band was notable (or so they tell me), not her. --maclean25 00:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable, she is an excellent musician. --Sweet-as-suger 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This account was created today, with a high sock-puppet index. Cleduc 08:16, 7 November 2005 (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.