Talk:Lo Lifes

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating this very interesting article! It looks like a few of the sources (e.g., [1] and [2]) may not be reliable. You might consider replacing them with more clearly reliable sources. Otherwise, looks good. MYou might consider nominating this at WP:DYK :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Why was Rack-Lo page deleted and redirected here?[edit]

I made an entry for Rack-Lo, one of the co-founders of the Lo Lifes and author of a book on the subject, published by powerHouse. The article was approved, I believe as a C-class living biography. But there's no way to see the rating or anything else, because earlier this week the entire enrty was deleted completely, I believe by Onel5969, and Rack-Lo now redirects to this page, Lo Lifes. I'm sure there were reasons for this, but nothing was indicated on the talk page or otherwise. I would love to have some clarity on why this was done, and what logic was used to deem Rack-Lo unworthy of a distinct enrty. Mozby (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have no notability outside the group, as shown by the fact that all of the sourcing in that article was about the group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, I appreciate it. I don't understand the reasoning, though, because Rack Lo demonstrably does have notability outside the group, per the sources (none of which were published or produced by the Lo Lifes). People other than Lo Life group members know who Rack Lo is, to the point that a book he wrote about his experiences with the group was purchased by a publishing house. Do you mean that Rack Lo is only known for this one thing? And wouldn't that be true of many other people with biographical entries? Mozby (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]