Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z LaLa (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is keep. Please note that the nominator's rationale is discounted as they have been blocked as a sockpuppet and Doomsdayer520 has changed from a delete rationale to keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z LaLa

[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)

Current sources don't pass WP:GNG Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator has been blocked as a sock related to a probable UPE and/or extortion scheme. Nomination should not be considered in Good Faith. -- GreenC 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is the second nom. Fails WP:SINGER. There is some media presence, but mostly related to her extravagant clothing on a few awards ceremonies. Kolma8 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because she has a charting single ([1]) and some media notoriety in "worst dressed" lists. She has some listings for modeling work, and gets noticed occasionally for her gimmick of singing in lots of different languages. Those are minor achievements that the article desperately over-interprets with terms like "controversial" and "pushing the boundaries", or implying that she is a social justice champion because she has LGBT fans. She is present in the media but not quite comprehensively enough for the requirements at WP:NSINGER and WP:NMODEL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Wikipedia topic fall for WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This topic has everything that is needed to fulfil General notability guideline. According to WP:SINGER second rule (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.) and serval other rules this topic meets WP:SINGER and singing in lots of different languages isn't minor achievements. WP:NSINGER has no guideline for having good third party charting like this ([2]). The topic also falls under WP:NMODEL, with significant roles in multiple notable singles, large fan base and made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. So this topic is nominated the second time, which seemed clear attack as it was last time.Umair Ahmad Butt (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has a enough notability to stay. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Couldn't find any substantial coverage of her music, reviews of it, interviews with her, etc. besides one small podcast -- worst dressed slideshows don't qualify as "significant." Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to WP:GNG & WP:NMODEL with significant reliable reference, should stay on Wikipedia.Arslan Ahsan (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most editors suggesting this should be kept are failing to do so with policy/guideline based reasons and so this is leaning delete. Relisting to see if better consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above: plenty of non-trivial coverage in independent sources, Sadads (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I revised the organization of the article, added a reference from HuffPost, and edited WP:PUFFERY. Per WP:MUSICBIO, Z LaLa had a single on the Billboard chart for twelve weeks, with a peak position of 10, so notability is supported. In addition, she objectively appears to have WP:BASIC coverage of her "notable style" in independent and reliable sources (e.g. SFGate, HuffPost, Business Insider, E!Online) because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My original vote above was to delete, but thanks to the recent work performed by others, I would now support a Keep verdict. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 26 February 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.