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 delete. Pretty much a WP:SNOWCLOSE. No prejudice against recreation of the article if reliable sources about Ms Exotika are cited. Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Exotika[edit]

Nikki Exotika (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)

There is no evidence of this person's work - no impact and no notoriety. There are no notable recordings or videos, appearances, articles or artistic works. The article starts by describing her as "attempting to create a girls group" - this is hardly an achievements that merits an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.79.223 (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of the above IP editor. I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of the sources could be considered to be reliable. Forming a musical group seems more of a whim. Fails WP:GNG.
• That's not so, this is clearly a reliable source. This Queerty article, too. The Queety piece links to both the Daily Mail story and this HuffPo piece about her wanting to form that band. And a second story about that in the Daily Mail, from 2014. And of course the Wikipedia article does have the NY Daily News story about her being tossed from the "pro-plastic surgery TV show after botched breast augmentation." My own person rule of thumb for "multiple" RS is three, and she'd squeak by. Weak keep. The nomination seems to be suggesting that she fails WP:NMUSIC -- no argument there. But WP:GNG is a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Daily Mail is not considered to be a reliable source. It is an English tabloid newspaper, like The Sun. The fact that the New York Daily News report appears in its "gossip/confidential" pages must be a red flag. My concern here is that at the moment this WP:BLP page presents a rather sensationalist view of the individual. Karst (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're both definitely tabloids and WP:NEWSORG does caution us against reporting rumours/gossip but this would rise above that? Is the Daily Mail on a blacklist or could you link to a relative policy page? Certainly open to changing my mind on this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not blacklisted, but according to this is "should not be used". Karst (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking through weak keep per Karst, above. Neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person has not even managed to create a planned group, and even if the group is created and becomes notable, there is no reason to think this individual will be notable as a result.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What we learn here is the following: (1) a girl group was planned in 2015 but has not been formed yet (and may never be formed); (2) an appearance on an E! program was planned, but did not happen; and (3) a lot of money was spent on plastic surgeries. None of this is indicative of notoriety, influence, or other value for an archival entry Moshe Kam (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I frankly see this as A7 material, nothing minimally convincing and Daily Mail articles are both not the supporting significant claims and substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 16 July 2016 (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.