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 sourcedmust 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.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frank Zappa, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Frank ZappaWikipedia:WikiProject Frank ZappaTemplate:WikiProject Frank ZappaFrank Zappa
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts 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.Textile artsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile artsTemplate:WikiProject Textile artsTextile arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists 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 artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
Besides the fact that Diva has some fans here who have so far obstructed 2 justified deletion attempts, let us face it that she is yet to do anything notable with her life. Pretty much the same goes for her sister Moon. On the other hand, Dweezil and Ahmet are established artists who deserve their respective articles. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD (and therefore consensus) disagrees with you. Your accusations of "obstruction" are without merit and your claims of "unimportant" are utterly subjective. Your placement of the notability template is inappropriate and disruptive given the multiple reliable sources. Clearly you have some personal issue and/or are simply trying to delete things you don't like. Fortunately policies like WP:GNG protect Wikipedia. Specifically: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. If you still disagree, then send it to AfD for an objective discussion instead of blanking reliably-cited information in a ham-fisted attempt to give the appearance of non-compliance. - Burpelson AFB✈10:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Subject's media coverage is peripheral, her notability is far from established (as it's not hereditary). A few votes won't change that the article goes against WP policies. Your comically officious reply made me smile, but that's all. And please stop posting warning templates on my talkpage, I've probably been here way longer than you. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop violating policies and I'll stop templating you. Your assertions hold no water, except for when you disruptively blank out some of the references to support your own conclusions, as you've done here [1] twice now. And stop marking things as minor when they aren't minor. - Burpelson AFB✈13:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat: please stop acting officious and pompous, and I'll stop laughing. Also, obviously I have nothing personal against the subject. Thank you. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert this time, but here's the problem: please name another encyclopedia that would feature a fully-blown article for someone like Diva Zappa. This is an inherent WP problem: it's a form of WP:PUFF and WP:PEACOCK under a legitimate guise, hidden under rigid policies; because notability is hereditary in WP. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ13:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with responding is that your premise is based, essentially, on WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't know whether puffery is an issue on Wikipedia in general or not and this isn't my concern, and other encyclopedias aren't my concern either. What I'm currently interested in is an apparent attempt to vandalize an article so as to make the subject appear non-notable as a preempt to get the article deleted. The article's subject satisfies the GNG, and not because of heredity, but because of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. - Burpelson AFB✈14:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know whether puffery is an issue on Wikipedia in general or not and this isn't my concern, and other encyclopedias aren't my concern either." This is exactly the editorial attitude that makes WP a flawed tool (but ideal for fluffy pop culture stuff). No use in reverting or AfD, because fluff is here to stay. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon final review, I find that you are clearly a fanboy of the subject, as you were the one who recreated the article after its deletion, and you seem to be the only one really interested in its survival (even filing an undue AN/I in the process along with premature templating). I could possibly reach a 2nd deletion with enough energy investment, but that would be ultimately useless as there are thousands of other fluffy socialite articles on here with thousands of assorted fanboys. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ14:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, questioning peoples motives is not appropriate. Whatever your own views on the scope of the Wiki please do not take it out on other editors. In this case consensus tends to be in favour of covering a wider variety of topics, even fluffy ones. I strongly suggest dropping the stick and either AFD the article (to judge current consensus on whether this article should be kept) or try to get wider community review on the scope of articles. Accusations of fanboyism, obstruction etc. are not in good faith and should be avoided. --Errant(chat!)14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Burpelson, you don't cease to amuse me. My userpage is full of jokes and I'm a wikisloth: now do I care about "losing face"? I dunno what is more amusing: your pervasive pompousness or your complete lack of humour. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ19:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... to me (an uninterested third party) you come off as the pompous one. You sure have a dismissive attitude, trying to get people's articles deleted. Then it appears after he got upset you continued to goad him with dismissive attitudes and insults, then weaseled out of it with a seemingly empty apology. BAFB seems a bit of a hothead and needs to cool down, but your behavior is less than spectacular here and I don't think people here are as stupid as you think they are. Please Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. Night Ranger (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moon Zappa's lead vocals is the reason why Zappa's most successful single "Valley Girl" was such a hit and I think at least that cultural impacting song is enough for her to have an article. Diva? Yeah she may not be notable... --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
