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 redirect to Sheelah. No evidence that this person is notable on their own. Per WP:MUSICBIO, a redirect to the band's article is the standard procedure. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Li[edit]

Sara Li (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)

She is not notable beyond the band she is a part of. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Per WP:MUSIC section 2 and 11, 12 she has had a chart listed song on the main Swedish chart.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BabbaQ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Comment BabbaQ did she chart as a solo performer or in the band? Do you have a source? Flat Out (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All I can find in terms of charting songs is one song which featured her (Mirakel), and which spent one week at number 19 at Sverigetopplistan in 2012. However, she is not credited as the main artist at sverigetopplistan.se , it only says "feat. Sara". She does not appear to have had any solo releases at all, judging by the information at her own website. She was also a member of a band which had several charting songs, but not while she was a member of the band, so that does not factor into her notability. --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not change the fact that she covers section 12 on WP:MUSIC which makes her notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:MUSICBIO point 12, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."? The article does not mention this at all, nor did I find anything about it when I was looking for sources. Could you please provide some details about when that "broadcast segment" (weird term IMO) took place, and through which medium? --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC: 'Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band.' O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore to give proof of how she fails several sections of WP:MUSIC which has been raised as proof that she is notable. Her participation in Melodifestivalen and her finslist status alone makes her notable per WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Charting song http://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Bj%F6rn+Ranelid+feat%2E+Sara+Li&titel=Mirakel&cat=s J 1982 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the discussion above, that's the song that was briefly at no 19 of the Sverigetopplistan. She does not seem to have been the main artist, though - it says "Feat." and to me that seems like a deal breaker. --bonadea contributions talk 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That she has a featuring status is irrelevant. Especially since she participated in the Melodifestivalen with the song as co-singer of the track.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Melodifestivalen is not a claim to notability - the song which featured her finished in 10th place per this source. I have posted to the NMUSIC talk page to ask about "featuring" - I would like to know what the general consensus is. --bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is placed 10th is also irrelevant concerning notability or not. It reached the final in a major TV production and was one of the top 10 songs. And per section point 12 of the WP:MUSIC consensus standard for inclusion she is relevant. Per 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.. And when I came to think about it she also passes criteria 1. as well. BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melodifestivalen is a contest, not a television feature or documentary (fails criterion 12), and so her participation there certainly doesn't mean she meets WP:MUSICBIO - criterion 9 is quite clear on this, only the winner, runner-up, and third place count, even if we ignore the fact that she is not credited as a main artist for the song. As for criterion 1 - really? How is that? There is one source in the article that is about her, and that's an interview - where are the multiple published sources about her, as opposed to sources briefly mentioning her name while discussing the main artist? Because those are the only sources I can find, trivial mentions of her at best. I would not be opposed to redirecting the article to the article about the band she was in, though. --bonadea contributions talk 07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sheelah Per WP:MUSICBIO Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band,. The charting songs are part of the band. The only other song which is relevant was the one in which the subject was a featured artists. I do not see any proof to show notability independent of the band. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote does not mention above tslked about sections of WP:MUSIC which she does passes. You say you dont see proof, but you give no proof that she fails the threshold.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sheelah since she was a member of this group from 2009 to 2010. She does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or the more general WP:BIO. It's possible there are more sources out there that I did not find (I don't read Swedish) but there is nothing in the article to justify keeping this bio. Meters (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sheelah as per above editors. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give an explaination for this !vote otherwise it becomes irrelevant. How is she not notable, per which sections of which guidelines?--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article covers section 2, 11 and 12 of WP:MUSIC it is a fact. A song she was part of charted, and she participated and reached the final of Melodifestivalen which is a major singing competition event broadcast on Swedens main channel SVT. The article is sourced with good sources. The !votes above are basic WP:IDONTLIKEIT per the fact that they dont mention the fact that she covers WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC per above mentioned sections. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite BabbaQ's claims, this is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. This is a case of an article not showing the notability of its subject, and of the subject possibly not being notable. bonadea showed that the subject does not meet MUSIC criterion 2 and you appeared to accept that. Criterion 12 has also been discussed. I agree that simply being a 10th place contestant on a music show does not meet the standard of being "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment". As for criterion 11, there is no claim in the article that she "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". Please provide sources showing this if this is the case. As for criterion 1, again, there is no claim or evidence in the article that she has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". If there is such coverage please provide the sources. I've looked without finding such sources, but as I said, I don't read Swedish, so I may have missed them. Most of English Wikipedia editors likely have the same problem. Meters (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Whether or not its redirected can be a different RfC. L3X1 (distant write) 17:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: 'Redirect' is a valid policy-based result for an AfD. You realise this isn't a RfC though? From your comment it isn't completely clear. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Sorry my !vote isn't clear. The reason I gave duality is J 1982's keep argument is good yet looks a slightly flimsy to me, and Meter and Lemongirl's votes aren't convincing enough to make me vote Redirect. Her being "feat." is of less interest to me then the song only getting to 19, but I suppose 19 is better than not at all. Now I'm leaning more towards redirect. L3X1 (distant write) 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 3 Keep*, 3 Redirect, 2 Del+Nom. *= I'm fine with redirect, but I support the relisting. Should we ping others?L3X1 (distant write) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a vote. It's a consensus based on "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." The policy based arguments, in my opinion, don't support keeping this as an article. The AFD has been open for almost 3 weeks, and no new sources have been added to the article to help establish notability. For that matter, there have been no content additions to this article since the day it was created almost 4 years ago. If she's notable let's see the evidence, because I can't find it. Meters (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more than aware. If a consensus exists, it is keep. That was all I was stating. And consensus is based off the merits of the arguments, if we're going to keep quoting WP at each other. L3X1 (distant write) 23:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are aware, then don't don't bother posting a count. It just makes inexperienced editors think this is a vote. The closing admin will evaluate the arguments. Meters (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why this attitude. This is an Keep worthy article and user L3X1 agrees with me and other editors of that. No need to be pointy and having an attitude about it. As you state, the closing admin will consider reasons given. So why be pointy about someone elses reasonings. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • But while we are at it. There is no consensus for deletion, or redirect. Then Keep for new re-evaluation in the future is the way it should closed. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her band as we have so often in the past. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant per WP;OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We dont base !votes on previous and other AfDs. You give no explaination for your !vote either.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Users are entitled to !v without you jumping down their throats every sentence. Please just let the process evolve organically: you will change neither the editor's opinion not the closing admin's decision, so way to waste your time  :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see "this behaviour all the time. It is called making an argument, you would have never made this "tantrum" comment if I had shared your opinion on this article. If you are so sure about it getting deleted or having no impact than why respond. I think your biggest concern is that I do not share your opinion :)BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing user - The article has been expanded and improved since the article was nominated for AfD. BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BabbaQ asked me User_talk:Meters#Sara_Li to review the new material [1] added to the article. The birth of her daughter is not notable. The 10th place finish at Melodifestivalen 2012 has already been analysed above by User:Bonadea and does not show notability. The appearance on Så ska det låta doesn't show notability in my opinion. It's just a guest appearance in one episode of a musical game show show that has been running for 22 seasons. I don't object to adding this material to the article, but none of it shows notability. Meters (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So you basically ignore the sources. POV does not trump Wikipedia guidelines. Sara Li covers several sections of WP:MUSIC above. I understand your position but no one still has given me anything else than POV. Or a drive-by !vote of redirect without any further commenting. I just find it a bit odd overall. BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this POV? I didn't ignore the sources. You asked me to look at the new material and I did. The sources are fine (well, the Så ska det låta source is a bit weak). They just don't contribute to showing Li's notability. She had a daughter. So what? Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article, but it does not make her notable. Adding a sourced mention that she finished 10th in the Melodifestivalen 2012 contest rather than just participating is an improvement to the article, but again, it does not show her notability. As I said, Bonadea has looked at this and shown that it is not sufficient for notability. And, as I also said, I don't think one guest appearance on a long-running musical game show show is sufficient for notability either. Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article, but it does not help show notability. The show may be notable but simply appearing on it does not make musicians notable. Meters (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (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.