Talk:Cupcakke

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 24 January 2017 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in hip hop music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip hop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip hop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip hop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicWomen in hip hop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Louishill98. Peer reviewers: Vinoyo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it's being made about a rapper who is steadily gaining popularity with each day. CupcakKe has at least 2 albums available for purchase on iTunes and streaming services, and her videos have garnered her more than 5 million views on YouTube alone. She is an official up-and-coming artist and she deserves her own wikipedia page, just like all the other up and coming artists have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskie2010 (talk • contribs)

@Drewskie2010: No, she does not deserve the same treatment that all the other up-and-coming artists get. They haven't been mentioned in a Rolling Stone best-of list; she has. That's why their articles get speedy deleted, but I've declined to speedy delete hers.

The community may still decide, after discussion, to delete the article, but the presence of the Rolling Stone mention is enough to say that we need to take a longer look. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred Thank you so much for looking into it further! She's also been mentioned by several other credible music publications such as Complex Magazine, Pitchfork, and Fader. I'd be able to provide the sources for those mentions if you'd like. Personally, I just think it would be unfortunate for people to see her name mentioned in all of those well known magazines, and not even be able to find any further information about her here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskie2010 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drewskie2010, "mentioned" is not the metric we use to determine notability. Significant coverage in these sources is the metric. Please see our general notability guideline. There's a big difference between a passing mention, and someone actually caring enough to write an in-depth article. Further, a deletion discussion was already held on this subject. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CupcakKe. This newest incarnation is not significantly improved over the article that was deleted. Please also see WP:NMUSIC, as those are the more specific guidelines for musicians. Until that time, I'm re-nominating for speedy deletion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does G4 apply? Would incubation be a better solution right now?

I feel a little too close to the situation to remove the G4 tag. However, I looked at the deleted version of the article, and it cited no (independent) sources. The current version of the article brings in at least three publications, so it's improved and not substantially identical.

That said, I do see where it is still pretty early in the artist's career. Does anybody object if I move the article to Draft space so we can incubate the article until there is substantial coverage? Pinging @Cyphoidbomb and Drewskie2010: to make sure they see this. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C.Fred, no objection to the move. The CupcakKe article has already been deleted five times, so I really think Drewskie, or any other enthusiastic editors who choose to work on it really need to work hard on impeccably establishing notability before submitting the draft for review. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb I did a lot of editing to the article and formed a good basis of her background and career that will be further detailed in the future. Did i include enough information about her that would deem her to be "notable" by Wikipedia's standards? If not, what more could I add? Thanks! - Drewskie2010

Drewskie2010, from the general notability guideline:

"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. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Which reference satisfies the "significant coverage" part of the guideline? A passing mention in Rolling Stone doesn't do it. A passing mention in the others doesn't do it. And which of the 12 criteria at WP:BAND would you argue that you've properly demonstrated? Is she signed to a major label? Is she certified gold? Has she charted? Is she in rotation on the radio or a music television show? Etc... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb She may have recieved a "passing mention" in Rolling Stone, but she was given a full interview for Paper and Complex magazine, which were displayed in the references listed. (That's where I got her early history/biography from, proving that no original research was needed to extract the content.) The publications listed also gave her and her music specific coverage, and some of her songs and albums have small articles written about them. It's definitely more than a passing mention in some cases. How many of the 12 criteria do we have to meet for one artist? I was under the impression that only 1 of the 12 needed to be met, but i could be wrong. I would definitely argue that at least the full interviews conducted by the established music publications would count as significant coverage. → — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskie2010 (talk • contribs)

Drewskie2010, only one of the specific notability criteria at WP:BAND need to be met, I just don't see that any of them have been met yet. Also, primary sources like interviews are typically not sufficient to establish a subject's notability because they fail the "independent of the subject" aspect of the general notability guideline. Unrelated, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. This will automatically append your signature and a time stamp. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Starting a new section so as not to derail the above. Drewskie2010 you uploaded the photos in this article (File:Cupcakke.jpg and File:9d1036e7f96d521784da20908a5fd6b5.200x200.jpg) to Commons with a free license release. Are you the copyright owner of both photos with the authority to license them like that? Please confirm, thanks! Crow^Caw 21:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable for Draft:Cupcakke to be published?

Draft:Cupcakke has developed over the past months and into 2017, and during this development, her recognition by both newspapers and magazines have grown from her recent releases, and it has high been time that this draft should be published. In addition, her social media accounts have been verified and grown since the contested deletion topic, and should that this be taken into consideration. Unofficially she isn't an upcoming-artist and majority of the draft is sourced and referenced, which should include into the recommendation of publication. MunRis (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create pages for cupcakKe's albums (and singles, possibly)?

Seeing how some of cupcakKe's songs and albums have been getting notice long before the notability notice that was recently placed and taken off, would be acceptable for a few of her songs as well as few of her mixtapes/album be given their own pages as well, such as Cum Cake; Deepthroat, Vagina, and Juicy Coochie? Despite there being other songs, it would be suggested that they would temporarily lead the pages, since not much media buzz has been circulating around the other singles. MunRis (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though I know this response is late, notability criteria for individual songs can be found at WP:NALBUM. At the very least, the general notability guideline must be satistfied to warrant the creation of an article for a single. Not everything under the sun needs its own article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about her music videos too Wow wow lulu (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Move

Per WP:COMMONNAME The artist is credited in ALL major sources as CupcakKe, not Cupcakke. Here K is and so should be capitalized. MunRis | talk 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to necrobump, I agree. --Aleccat 00:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~, per consensus reached at Talk:k.d. lang --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your support !vote is nice, but where did MunRis properly establish that the "artist is credited in ALL major sources as CupcakKe, not Cupcakke"? I mean, it's great if there's a prior consensus in favor of using stylization as a common name, but you're taking a huge leap of assumption to support a hyperbolic, anecdotal assertion. Rolling Stone apparently calls her Cupcakke[1][2], one of her hometown papers, Chicago Tribune calls her Cupcakke. So clearly not "ALL" major sources call her CupcakKe. iTunes calls her "cupcakKe"[3], as does Amazon.[4]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything about the subject, just assumed that was the most common spelling. k.d. lang is the only other example off the top of my head. Now that I think about it, I think there are a lot of artists with stylized names, but MOS:MUSICCAPS generally prohibits it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Audacious to this article

Audacious is not a notable album. It has not charted on any chart, and has almost no independent recognition/coverage that is reliable. --Aleccat 23:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article would still have enough citations to stand on its own if the unreliable sources are removed from the article.MunRis • †alk 23:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the article does not need to be merged or moved, it proves that it is notable and it does not need a chart position to prove it. PantherCoulee (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I've removed the merge notices from the main pages since its been three years and there is clearly no consensus to merge. We can't keep that notice up forever.--N Ø 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology?

I don't know, is the uppercase K stylised purely or is there a philosophical significance?

Thom wrote about Steve Reich and they informed me of this artist's existence just now so I am a newcomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.196.101 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly clear ethymology: derived from BUKAKKE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.143.222.25 (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide post

Can we add to the page she was taken to the hospital for evaluation due to suicidal thoughts? It made news headlines and caused a stir on social media.2600:1:F331:1F47:354C:A72C:35B4:250A (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ^{[Username Needed]} 15:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pls do a discography page for CupcakKe

Pls do a discography and videography page for CupcakKe Wow wow lulu (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Cupcakke in 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to cupcakKe's Early Life

In two of her songs (Ace Hardware and Reality Pt.3 she mentions being arrested for shoplifting at the age of 14, which I would mention on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuwus (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]