Talk:Ketsia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <she has enough sales to land on the billboard hot 100, she must be significant, no? See this link: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150215726573044&set=a.10150215726383044.337964.5958573043&type=1&ref=nf>. — JessT9090 (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC) >. — JessT9090 (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is never a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <All I see are facts. Facts with citations. Keep.>. — HpotterJiggles (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

acharts.com and memagazine.com don't strike me as very reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some research of my own Mike, here are my conclusions: (1) memagazineonline.com IS a website.. however, it is only cited because it has the full pdf version of the actual, physical Me Magazine issue the singer in question was published in, in summer 2010. (2) acharts seems to be a reliable archive of all the past Billboard charts. Once again, with no disrespect to Orangemike, I say, KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HpotterJiggles (talkcontribs) 14:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Hey Mike. You said that http://acharts.us doesn't strike you as a reliable source, however, this same source is being referenced in MANY Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number-one_albums_of_2009_%28Australia%29; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_Bitch; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoveGame; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dutch_Top_40_number-one_singles_of_2010; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_%28band%29; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fame; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dutch_Top_40_number-one_singles_of_2011; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharleen_Spiteri; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_singles_which_have_spent_the_most_weeks_on_the_UK_Singles_Chart; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paparazzi_%28Lady_Gaga_song%29; and there are hundreds more. My question for you, why is this a legitimate source for so many other articles but not for Ketsia? HpotterJiggles.[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <Using sales data from Nielsen SoundScan Inc [1], the Quebec Government ranked her as having the 15th most sold Quebecois digital track in 2010, for her song "Possible" [2].>. — PJsmth (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

File:Ketsia.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ketsia.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know her?[edit]

I put in some information about her because the former version just sounded like advertisement. The information I got isn't very informative. I recently have a slight browser problem but there is not much I could find about her. Moreover, all the information on her official website or on K-train is the same. Same for the social web. Is she actually famous? --Gib zwei (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new album, but relevant article?[edit]

She has a new album out, you'll find it on her website.

As no further information came during the last months and her popularity remained the same, I have doubts that this isn't a candidate for deletion. Should the article be deleted? Gib zwei (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ketsia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ketsia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]