User talk:KaylynBuckley

Welcome!

Hello KaylynBuckley! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Guillemots (band) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Guillemots (band) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.discogs.com/Various-Broader-Than-Broad-Street/release/9631046) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, KaylynBuckley. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you! There's not a conflict of interest here :) I'll make some edits to make it sound less personal. I'm still relatively new here! Thanks! 23:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)KaylynBuckley (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Kaylyn[reply]

It sure reads like you have one. Listen, you can edit all you want, but if you keep reinserting primary sources (links to the band's website, his own website, whatever) and spammy links to Spotify, and unacceptable links to Soundcloud, you will be reverted every time. And calling him a "philanthropist" in the lead for that one thing he did, which isn't even verified by proper secondary sources, is not acceptable either. Someone isn't a philanthropist on Wikipedia unless reliable sources make it so. You're new? That's fine--but see WP:RS for sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to be a bother but can you help me understand what still isn't a good source? I added 10 new sources to verify info that you deleted and so I'm just a little confused. I got rid of the Spotify and Soundcloud links (I was using another artist's page that I like, the band Like Monroe, as a reference and they have a couple of external links to Youtube.) But what's wrong with the news articles I've cited? And, isn't there a friendlier way to discuss this? KaylynBuckley (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but from my perspective you walk into an encyclopedia and write promotional language full of spam links on a subject that you seem to care so much about that you can't write neutrally, so I don't know how friendly you want me to be. I indicated that Spotify was not an acceptable source, that links to the subject's website were not a good source, and you put them right back in, and that doesn't seem too friendly to me. And then you reverted me again, and after removing a few of those links you still left a couple. I linked to WP:RS, and you leave this in the article? A link to the agent's website? No, that's enough. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are my first two Wikipedia articles and they're about a band and a musician I'm a fan of. I spent hours today going through for secondary sources and you've since deleted all of them? I was verifying that they were signed by a certain agent by showing that page. Is being a fan of a band a COI? You're really just being mean and this feels a bit like bullying, not constructive for a new user. I'm really trying, and I'm asking you to be a little more kind in the conversation. I'm working really hard on this!KaylynBuckley (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Still learning :)KaylynBuckley (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of King Youngblood for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article King Youngblood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Youngblood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the friendly encyclopaedia

Hi Kaylyn, welcome and chin up! I see you threw yourself in at the deep end. Don't worry and I hope it's not upsetting you. Everything will work out okay if you still want to hang around. All the best, SarahSV ^(talk) 03:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SarahSV I really needed this message, thank you. I made a mistake and dealt with an issue in the wrong way. I'm crying pretty hard right now haha which sounds silly but the "deep end" is right, haha.

I know the feeling about crying! I haven't looked closely at the articles, but I think it was a question of using primary sources. See WP:GOLDENRULE: "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." Note the important words: "independent of the topic". If you can stick to that, with perhaps one link per article to the band's website but no more than that, your articles should be okay. I'll take a look at them now. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, look at this source, newsbreak.com. [1] That is actually just a press release from the band. While in some sense there is no better source than the band for information about the band, it doesn't help to establish the band's notability or whether the information can be trusted. They can say anything about themselves in a press release. But if we use a secondary source instead, such as a newspaper, we know that someone other than the band and the Wikipedia editor has cast an eye over that press release. And it means that someone other than the band is interested in the band. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV Ah okay, gotcha. Thanks for taking a look at the sources for me. :) That's really what I needed help with in the first place and I am grateful for your constructive help with it! I am genuinely trying to learn which was why this was a hard night for me. I've just been filling time during quarantine but really wouldn't have gone down this route if I'd had any idea how this would have gone!KaylynBuckley (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted with you and SlimVirgin, but I was very sorry to see you were crying, I hope you feel better now, and I think I'll post this unchanged. Sorry if any of it's now old news you've been told by lots and lots of people.

Came here from AN/I. As someone who started on Wikipedia with a completely formatted article based on copying the formatting codes for another article (it took me a while to realize that if my word processor hadn't inserted smart quotes, or if I'd had the wisdom to preview, I might have been investigated or even blocked as a sockpuppet), let me see if I can give you a fast guide in relatively plain language, all in one place.

Here's a summary of what a new article needs to have to demonstrate that the topic is what we call notable (can have its own page). (The exceptions are obvious things like cities, Nobel Prize winners, chemical elements ....) The page has lots of links, but basically you'll need at least two long treatments of the band in books/newspapers/magazines/music websites: a whole article or chapter, or at least a long paragraph where they are used as one of a few examples. (Of course if someone makes a feature film about them, that will count too!) These cannot be based on press releases, much less published by the band or their agents; things like that can be used to a limited extent (dating the name change, for example), but don't count toward notability. And they can't include some private person's blog or other sites that anyone can edit, such as IMDb; that's what's meant by "reliable sources". In addition to that basic guideline for notability (referred to as the GNG), there are also special notability guidelines for specific kinds of topics, to cover things specific to them (and that not all editors may be familiar with); the ones for bands are here, and you'll notice include such things as having won a major award or having members who have also been in notable groups. The article has been nominated for deletion. If you want to save it, you should go to the deletion discussion and post a "keep" argument based on the band being notable under either the general or the band-specific guidelines. If you now realize that the article doesn't have enough extended coverage in reliable sources, you're (I presume) in Seattle, you know the local media, you're best placed to find the necessary additional coverage and add it.
Since we're an encyclopedia, one of our fundamental values is to present things neutrally, so that the reader can trust what they read. (We also try to base everything in an article on cited sources, so the reader can verify the accuracy—and find out more if they want to.) But not everybody understands this, and it can be hard to write neutrally on things one feels strongly about. So both fans and publicists are a problem for the editing community. You have said you just like the band; but you need to write about them as neutrally as possible (I sometimes tell new editors that the ideal Wikipedia style is dull, dull, dull, "just the facts"). Related to that, we keep external links to the bare minimum—ideally one official page, not three or four social media links—we don't use in-line links, and we don't use as references links to the video of a song or to a page that is just a place to buy something. Paid editing is very heavily discouraged, and must be declared (preferably with a statement on the user page), all of which is why you got sharp questions about conflict of interest ("COI"). We do understand as a community that new editors have to start somewhere, and tend to start with something they're interested in, and so I apologize that people jumped to that conclusion. Drmies in particular can be a very nice guy and a fine wiki-friend; I hope after the article is saved and improved with the help of other editors, you and he can work together on other things.
Finally, people here really can be very healpful. As others have said, try the Teahouse, a help board for new editors. There are other links in the welcome template at the top of the page, but I hope I've made the basics a bit clearer, and please forgive me if you knew most of it by now. Welcome aboard, and you have my sincere thanks for writing an article—that's what we're here for, and I hope you will write many other useful articles after this one. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yngvadottir! I really appreciate this, very much. I don't mean to sound dramatic or emotional, I was just very surprised with the personal insults and unfriendly comments I ended up getting from editors. And I was really upset by being told that no one would converse a little more kindly to help me understand what I was doing wrong. I'm not much on social media or internet threads and was blindsided by it, and that people wouldn't really give me information that was ultimately helpful - as this post really is! I did try to start with a topic I was interested in and a band I like, and just wanted to give writing a shot (I'm cooped up in a small NYC apartment and wanted to try something new). I like learning and writing and thought it would be a fun thing to learn to do. I do, though, totally understand how the links I'd put in would be seen as promotional. I was using Like Monroe's band page as a guide and they have some links to their Youtube videos, which was why I'd ended up including similar links that I shouldn't have.

Someone on another talk thread said I should wait a few months or a few thousand edits before attempting another article. What are your thoughts on that? I am okay with that if it's the case, and don't want to step on toes more than I already may have.

Thanks so much again, a friendly bit of advice and conversation here has really helped me feel much better! KaylynBuckley (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylyn, something else you might find helpful: you can write draft articles in your personal sandbox at User:KaylynBuckley/sandbox. You can make as many mistakes as you like on that page; it's all yours. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you SarahSV! That's really helpful. I'll take advantage of that. I didn't realize there was a way to draft in advance (I was doing it in Word!).KaylynBuckley (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Draft:King Youngblood, a draftspace where articles can be worked on. Although it's a draftspace, others can work with you there too but without your permission, so if you prefer to work alone, the sandbox is better. Finally, we have Wikipedia:Articles for creation, where you can propose new articles and have them checked before they're added to the encyclopaedia (which we call mainspace). In other words, there are several ways to practice your skills and get the article right before exposing it (and yourself!) to the public. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV Ah - live and learn! Wish I'd known that before, haha. I thought I was good at getting a handle of new websites and relatively tech savvy but Wikipedia is it's own little world. Definitely a learning curve and I'm not quite as savvy as I thought! KaylynBuckley (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving to draft and have suggested this in the deletion discussion. There used to be no rules on Wikipedia when it started; now there are so many we can't keep up with them. But they are all decided by consensus. Deb (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Looking back here before bed on the West Coast) Nooooooo, don't wait till you have thousands of edits to write another article! Some editors rarely if ever start new articles; some crank out little stubs; some write one a month ... whatever you feel like and have time for. As SlimVirgin said, you can draft articles, either in user space (personally I prefer to do this at User:Yngvadottir/Whatever... rather than use my sandbox, it's less confusing when I move it to mainspace and I am extremely untechy) or in the draft space. The draft space is intended for use with Articles for creation, which someone also mentioned at AN/I, so I should probably have mentioned it above and am glad SV did. The way that works is, when you think the article is ready, you submit it for evaluation and someone will review it, tell you what they think needs fixing first, and if they judge it ready, move it to mainspace for you. The vetting greatly reduces the chance of its being nominated for deletion. But a lot of people draft off-wiki using a word processor, too. Now I go boom :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've come here via WP:ANI. Seems you need a little help with sourcing. Here at Wikipedia, we prefere secondary sources, not primary ones. A primary souce is (in a band's case) something published by the band, their managers, record label or other entity closely associated with the band. A secondary source would be, say, an interview in a newspaper or magazine, a review by a music critic etc. See WP:REFBEGIN for more help in referencing articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same here.
KaylynBuckley, please note that interviews are often not useful as secondary, independent sources of information, as interview statements are usually just unmodified quotations of primary sources. The non-authoritative, but very informative and accurate summary at WP:42 explicitly excludes them from having any effect on notability. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The Wikipedia policies concerning images can be complex, and sometimes difficult to understand, but let's start with Wikimedia Commons (which, incidentally, is a seprate project from English Wikipedia, with different rules and administrators) does not accept copyrighted images, unless they get a notification from the owner of the copyright that they've given permission to do so. For this reason I've nominated your King Youngbood image for deletion there, and have removed it from the article here. In general, you cannot take an image you kind somewhere on the Internet and use it on Wikipedia, or upload it to Commons.

If you want to learn more about image use, go to WP:Image use policy here, or this page on Commons. Here, you can ask questions at WP:Teahouse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally get it and thanks for your help on all this. Wikipedia is really it's own world... and I'm learning I'm not very good at it yet?? Eek. It should be deleted.KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways to get images of the band to put in the article. You can take a picture of them yourself, at a concert or personal appearance, and upload it. If there's another image you want to use and you know the copyright holder, you can have them contact Commons OTRS here and have them confirm their identity and ownership and that they've given you permission to upload the image. Or, you can contact the band and suggest they upload one of their publicity photos on Commons, or Flickr, or some other image repository. As long as it's uploaded with the CC-BY-SA license, it can then be used here. (If they upload it to another repository, it will have to be re-uploaded to Commons, but the CC-BY-SA license allows that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 11 photos of the band's lead singer on Flickr here, by Sheri Foreman, but they're all copyrighted. What I've done before is to e-mail the copyright holder and ask if they'd be willing to either change the license of one of their pictures to CC-BY-SA so that you can upload it to Commons, or upload it to Commons themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is so helpful. Thank you! I really appreciate the guidance on this. I tried to do a little reading today on the Commons guidelines, but there's a lot there and it's a bit confusing. It definitely feels more doable and approachable when explained personally! (I'm not good at this yet but I'm determined to get there!)KaylynBuckley (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: King Youngblood (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praxidicae was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:King Youngblood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:King Youngblood, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Praxidicae (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KaylynBuckley! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Praxidicae (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hamilton (musical), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Macntaj

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Macntaj, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello KaylynBuckley. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:KaylynBuckley. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=KaylynBuckley|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praxidicae thank you for your feedback. :) I am not being compensated in any way for my edits and was not hired to write this piece -- I am a fan of indie music and this artist. I have been working on this article for a while to try to get it as "neutral" and "encyclopedic" as possible, and improve on earlier feedback from other articles. Thanks for your help.

KaylynBuckley (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Macntaj

The article Macntaj has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

apparent advertising for non-notable performer

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, can you help me with this? Feeling a little frustrated. The criterion for a performer being notable is listed as having multiple national publications and/or sufficient press to show them as a substantial local player -- which they've been featured in numerous national sources (The Source, the biggest hip hop music magazine, XXL Magazine which is huge as well), they're listed on other Wikipedia pages as they've been featured on major tracks of huge Grammy-nominated artists, and have tons of local coverage consistently calling them "Seattle's rising star." It seems like it meets all of Wikipedia's listed requirements for notability so I don't understand why it's being nominated for deletion. KaylynBuckley (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really my field, so I can't be sure, but it seems to me that someone described as a "rising star" is not yet notable. But I will remove the tag on the basis that he was the main subject of the XXL and Source articles; if anyone else does think him non-notable, they'll list him for a discussion soon enough--many WPedians work in this field. . DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Macntaj

Hi KaylynBuckley reverting your addition of https://Secure.gravatar.com/Avatar/D966077bfe5036946a0d99f275f10e02?s=20 I was wondering where that rather messy result came from. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:King Youngblood

Hello, KaylynBuckley. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "King Youngblood".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Did you ever continue with your work on your band articles? 198.84.229.183 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:King Youngblood

Hello, KaylynBuckley. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "King Youngblood".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]