Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somaya Reece (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:07, 14 April 2013

Somaya Reece

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Frequently recreated article that has zero independent reliable sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The past two AfDs have reached a consensus to delete the article; no independent reliable sources have been found since then and the article was last speedy deleted in January. VH1 is not an independent source for someone on a VH1 reality show. - Sudo Ghost 16:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proposer's claim of zero sourcing is false. VH1 is a reliable source for the appearance of someone on a VH1 reality show. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "zero sourcing", I said zero independent reliable sources. Articles require independent sources, and VH1 is far from an independent source, so that doesn't do anything for the notability of the subject. - Sudo Ghost 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VH1 is independent of Somaya Reece, despite her appearance on a show on the network. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In no way is VH1 independent of an individual on a VH1 reality show, especially when this is the reference in question. It exists solely to promote the show. The claim that this is an independent source is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards on independent sources, so how exactly do you figure that this is an independent source? - Sudo Ghost 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somaya Reece is not VH1. Somaya Reece is not the CEO, president, or other officer of VH1. Somaya Reece is not VH1's publicist. Etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Somaya Reece is not VH1" is a critical misunderstanding of independence; VH1 has a vested interest in the individual, and stands to gain by promoting the show and the individual's connection with VH1. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic; VH1 has a conflict of interest, hardly independent. The individual's profile on VH1 is due to being on a VH1 reality show, hence it is not an independent source. When you say that "Somaya Reece is not VH1," what you're describing is WP:ABOUTSELF, not independence, at least not any definition of "independent source" that has ever been used on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 20:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A borderline case, but the lack of solid, independent secondary sources cements my !vote. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added six more cites. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are trivial coverage, barely mentioning her name in passing while the articles discuss other subjects; articles require significant coverage, those sources don't have it. - Sudo Ghost 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised at your assessment of those sources, since they don't meet your desired conclusion. However, they do show the subject's notability, and you must have missed the Orange County Register and Fresno Bee articles, which are about this topic in particular (so your claim of "all" is objectively false). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those references, they do not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Those are local puffery pieces that add nothing to notability whatsoever; local "feel-good" news about an after school program does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially since that is not what this subject is supposedly known for by any means. It does not behoove you to comment about "desired conclusion", since you have argued to keep the article in all four AfDs, and have been the first person to comment on the past three AfDs, using rationales that have no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline whatsoever. This appears to be nothing more than bombardment in an attempt to make the article seem notable. If the subject's claim to notability is Love & Hip Hop but does not have actual notability herself, then it makes sense to redirect the subject to that article, as has been done with other individuals that appeared on that show, but it doesn't warrant a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 16:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I behooves me to do so; I have argued for each time, and disagreed with but respected the consensus that resulted from those. It does not behoove you to continue to assume bad faith on the parts of the editors who re-create and expand the article, just because you have decided that any of the sources used are trivial, puffery, or otherwise. If this discussion results in a delete, and later another editors recreates the article, and later it is AfDed again, I predict that I will !vote to keep again, and will do so first if no one has done so before I find the AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to WP:AAGF; accusing others of assuming bad faith where there is none does not help you in the least. - Sudo Ghost 17:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biographical information will always have a lack of sources, as the only source that will always be copied is the first-hand accounts of the person who is the subject. Citing that the reference sources do not maintain Wikipedia's standard doesn't hold much weight. The dates, body of work, and other information is at least reference-able, and it is limited to the information available in the public domain, without intruding upon the privacy and rights of the individual. Save reference arguments for science, factual postings, and the like. This is biographic and public-work related, and as such it meets all the criteria, if facts disagree with the material, find a source that is more reliable, and reference it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.132.66 (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles on Wikipedia have a requirement for notability, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. You're saying that the article is verifiable, but that's not the same as notability. - Sudo Ghost 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because this is a very well formatted article, my initial thought was Keep. But then I looked at it, and this is really just a non-notable struggling artist. Her film credits are junk, her television credits are non-notable except for a VH1 reality show. All sources are primary, either from Somaya Reece's own websites or VH1's Love & Hip Hop website; everything else is just blogs. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times , the Orange County Register, the Fresno Bee, the St. Louis American, Watertown Daily Times, and The Hollywood Reporter are not primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are also not significant coverage, as per the discussion above. - Sudo Ghost 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are also sufficient for notability, as per the discussion above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From Wikipedia:Notability: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Multiple independent sources which separately do not have depth of coverage are so combined here. "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." That would hold true here as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one of which has happened on this article. A "cult" following would need reliable sources showing that there is a cult following, there are none whatsoever. You quoted WP:BIO, btw, not WP:Notability, and you omitted a relevant portion of that sentence about trivial coverage; there are not enough independent sources to show any notability. A local after-school program "feel good" news piece and a few extremely trivial mentions do not create notability. - Sudo Ghost 20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *:::They are also sufficient for notability, as per the discussion above. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 10:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. From [[Wikipedia:Notability]]: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Multiple independent sources which separately do not have depth of coverage are so combined here. "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." That would hold true here as well. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
+::Neither one of which has happened on this article.  A "cult" following would need reliable sources showing that there is a cult following, there are none whatsoever.  You quoted [[WP:BIO]], btw, not [[WP:Notability]], and you omitted a relevant portion of that sentence about trivial coverage; there are not enough independent sources to show any notability.  A local after-school program "feel good" news piece and a few extremely trivial mentions do not create notability. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)