Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 30 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. My rationale is basically the same as the closer's comments at Afd3. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Jenna Rose

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jenna Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have nominated this article for deletion twice before. One debate resulted in delete, and the other resulted in keep. I am nominating it for a fourth time because I feel that enough time has passed to make it clear that this article meets all three criteria of a BLP1E, and should thus be deleted. A lot of the information in the article is only mentioned in local news, uncited, and cited with links that no longer work. This article has become a Pseudo-biography, and I feel that most of the information presented in the article is not encyclopedic. Rogerthat94 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. The nominator left notice on Talk pages pointing to the first deletion nomination, not this one. That's a pretty wrong way to treat editors, given that the nom knew it was the 4th nomination, and the nom's 3rd, as the nom carefully explained at the top.
2. The result of the 2nd deletion nomination was No Consensus. Rogerthat94 then rushed the 3rd nomination, just 20 days after the 2nd closed. The result of the 3rd deletion nomination was Keep, and that was endorsed upon review. All the keep reasons then are valid now, and the nominator's problem with Swerdlow personally, rather than article's merits, are to me, obvious.
3. I am, in this numbered item, about to question the nominator's motives. Look away if you don't like to see such things. Rogerthat94's persistence in trying to delete this BLP about this person seems obsessive. I want to know if this editor has a conflict of interest - that is, an interest in supporting any young female performers who aren't Jenna Rose Swerdlow? Does this editor have any contact with or beef with Swerdlow? Is this editor one of the swarming anti-Swerdlow "haters", given the claim of being "a student", with a (presumed) birthyear of '94 (age 16-17 in 2011)? Note that the contributions history started with 17 innocuous edits, then on 18 May 2011 became singularly focused on deleting this article. Why the sudden interest where there had been none before, student? In June 2011, Rogerthat94's user page was amended to self-declare as a deletionist, stating clearly that some articles "have no place on Wikipedia" - was that only a reference to Swerdlow at that point, and was self-declaring merely cover to mask singling out Swerdlow? Since then, those remarks have been deleted, but not retracted, or explained in edit summary. My point is, if there is any such conflict of interest, or obsessive agenda, about Swerdlow, Rogerthat94 should simply and honestly declare it and retract this nomination. It's obvious that nobody else currently cares to nominate this article - especially after a keep & endorse - only Rogerthat94. This is a low-edit-count editor (387 after 6 years, nothing wrong with that) with over 63 edits (16%) related to Swerdlow. That's a very high degree of interest in deleting this article, IMHO.
4. I agree with MichaelQSchmidt's rebuttal citation of policy, guideline, and essay, and that notability is not temporary, due to the persistence of offline verifiability, even if online verification has rotted, as it often does. BLP1E doesn't apply, for two reasons: multiple Swerdlow videos were released with similar "hater" popular response, and her videos are part of an larger ongoing news-mentioned trend of remarkable audience responses to mundane videos by kids. Coverage of her has occurred over multiple years. BTW part of that remarkable response was the rampant destruction/vandalism by hackers (script kiddies?) of most of her official online presence, which did hit the press. --Lexein (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the following response out from inside my comment. --Lexein (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When leaving the talk page notices, I had attempted to use the template {{subst:Afd-notice|ARTICLE NAME}} which was recommended here. I apologize for doing so incorrectly. I did not intentionally try to mislead anyone and all of my actions have been conducted in good faith. I informed the article's creator, involved admins, and people who voted in favor and against keeping the article in the past in order to have a fair debate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I apologize for posting two separate comments. The above was intended to solely be a response to Lexin's first item, before he moved it. I have been advised that it would be bad practice to now try and consolidate these two. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These personal attacks are untrue. Nothing other than the "My Jeans" song was reported in any sources that would be considered reliable enough to demonstrate notability outside of that single event. Just because she's released additional videos and gotten some additional blog coverage does not demonstrate notability beyond BLP1E, unless this coverage meets the proper guidelines. None of the sources reporting her later works that I found have met these guidelines. I wasn't using linkrot as my primary reason for deletion, it was merely something I was noting to show that a lot of information in this article probably can't be verified. The reason for deletion is because she only received significant coverage for the "My Jeans" song, which makes this a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If she were sourcable for having done only one thing ever, then your repeated AFDs and repeated cries of BLP1E might have credibility rather than appearing more simply of WP:IDONTLIKEHER . There is no demand or requirement that anyone found suitably notable through prior discussion and consensus "must" continue to remain in the headlines, and not every verifiable activity in her life needs to make headlines. Again... WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My response above was to a long set of comments now refactored. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The lack of any coverage in the year and a half since the last consensus speaks to how sensational the coverage was. She is in fact "sourcable for having done only one thing ever." The "Jeans" song. That's it. None of the sources about anything else meet the notability guidelines. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] WP:NOT#NEWS is not quite applicable here, as what we do is neutrally report what has been shared over a span of time by reliable sources elsewhere. Even two years of coverage elswehere is no simple news blip. WP:MUSICBIO#1 is met. That Swerdlow may have for a while turned her attentions to education or family does not make the earlier coverage vanish. And you forget WP:NTEMP. We do not expect a topic once found notable to remain forever in the headlines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The substantial coverage only lasted for a few days and it did not go "beyond the context of a single event" (The "Jeans" song). Yes there has been two years of coverage, but that coverage was not substantial and falls under "routine news" as per WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm not forgetting WP:NTEMP. This article is a WP:BLP1E, thus the subject is not notable enough to have an article in the first place. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage for various activities that have been reported in the media and have been shared to such a broad demographic over a many month/years period are not quite what is defined as "routine coverage". Per WP:BLP, information about someone must certainly be verifiable, but in building peoper BLP it is not mandated that every reliable source used to verify some aspect of a persons life must itself also be SIGCOV. The policy and applicable guideline, though related, are not interchangable. We do not require that notable topics must all be earth-shattering in importance, and I believe that in your repeated attempts to remove this topic, you are indeed forgetting NTEMP, and ignoring that she is verifiable for far more than just that one item... as are most folks who meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENT. When you perhaps bring this topic back to AFD a 5th or 6th or 7th time, there may be far greater concerns about WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:KEEPLISTING, and WP:POINT. I suggest you might take a look at two enlightening essays: WP:STICK and WP:WALK. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sources about something other than the "Jeans" song that you would consider more than routine coverage? I'm not saying every source must be SIGCOV, but in this case, "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" (per WP:BLP1E). I understand that subjects do not have to be "earth-shattering in importance" but they do have to be notable for more than one event, as per the guidelines. I resubmitted this to AfD because my first AfD was successful, and I felt enough time had passed without any significant coverage on another event to make it clear that this was a BLP1E. If I am wrong in this analysis and this AfD fails, I can assure you I will not submit it again. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should likely fail, and a better understanding of WP:BLP1E in its entirety would be of benefit to you as to why. In its summary, it states "BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals" (my emphasis). As Jenna Rose has done more than just My Jeans, has actively sought out attention, and has performed at public events, she is NOT low-profile... whether found notable or not. No matter what the coverage is for, Rose is per definition not a "low profile" individual. To further aid in your understanding, please read Wikipedia:What is one event. Had Jenna Rose been verifiable for creating and performing ONLY My Jeans, and absolutely nothing else ever... THAT would be a 1E. But as she "high profile" and is sourcable for doing more, even if the additional works did not have the same level of coverage as did My Jeans, per policy her BLP is NOT a BLP1E. Your feelings that a previous closer may not have understood applicable policy and guidelines should have been taken up with the closer so that he might have educated you so that "feelings" or a personal mis-interpretation of applicable policy would not become a flawed rationale for another deletion attempt. Since your previous deletion effort was only 20 days after an earlier close, only history will show if that promise to not repeatedly re-nominate is true or not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actions you mention all fit under the characteristics of a low profile individual mentioned on Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual. She has "been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication." She "has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group." I haven't found any evidence of "press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings," or actively seeking media attention. Yes she has released more songs, but these have not been reported outside of the context of the first event. It's all been something along the lines of "This is the girl who created the Jeans song. Look how edgy her new song is." No other event has been reported outside the context of the first. The lack of any coverage of her recent work is a testament to this. It was a mistake to submit the second AfD so soon, and I apologize for doing so. I don't feel the previous closer misunderstood anything. I feel that enough time has now passed without any significant coverage to make it clear that this was a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Were we even reading the same pages? Or is it that you've apparently mis-read and mis-interpreted again. Is this intentional? I am not asserting that being "high profile" equates to notability. Conversely, being "low profile" does not automatically equate to non-notability. That's not the issue I brought up. Others are invited to read "Characteristics of high- versus low-profile figures" to see for themselves that, notable or not, Jenna's verifiable actions specifically fit those ascribed to high profile persons through definitions at "media attention", "promotional ativities", and "appearances and performances". This activities do NOT have to be at high profile venues nor cost lots of money. It is the actions toward self-promotion that count (and were apparently successful). Verifiability of her "high profile" activities does not itself have to be SIGCOV. As stated further above, policy WP:V and applicable guideline WP:GNG, though related, are not interchangeable. To simplify for you: While SIGCOV must be in reliable sources, verfiability in reliable sources does not have to be SIGCOV. Different issues. Like my conclusions or not, and Jenna Rose being notable of not, this BLP is not a case for using BLP1E as a deletion rationale. Simple. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we were reading the same page. If you look back at my comment, I quoted the characteristics of Jenna Rose that show she is low profile according to those definitions. In fact, I had quoted parts of every definition you linked to. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had she NOT made any sourcable personal appearances or public performances, or if she had not recieved the attention of such not-local sources as Time Magazine and Newsday, your argument might have merit. The definitions of "high profile" fit Jenna, and p. Per policy, BLP1E is not to be used as a deletion rationale for BLPs of "high profile" individuals... no matter how "low" you may personally think her profile is. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her appearances and performances qualify her as low profile, according to the guidelines. Newsday is a local source, but you are right about Time. Regardless, profile changes over time. All of this coverage you're referring to is almost two years old. Currently, she is a low profile individual. The lack of any coverage for the last year and a half indicates that she is likely to remain a low profile individual. BLP1E still applies here. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her voluntary public appearance and performances meet the definition of "high profile", now matter how low you think her profile is. That you think she "is likly to remain a low profile individual" is a personal opinion based upon mis-interpretation of policy and guideline. And Newday is not exactly a neighborhood gazette... and as for "local"... if it were, I would not be able to access and read it in 2,500 miles away. The internet has caused some definite reconsideration of just what "local" means. If someone in Shanghai can read a source from Long Island, is it really "local"? Local in geo-location is not local for a global online readership. And if a source is only online to a global readership, such as articles abou her at Perez Hilton, and Houston Culture how is it reasonable to claim it only "local"? We have to consider just how far and wide she is being covered. But THAT issue will not be decided here. At least that truly local neighborhood gazette is local and covers only local news and events. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were all for "a limited group," which falls under the definition of low profile. I don't see what policy or guideline I am misunderstanding with my prediction. After all, one of the requirements for a WP:BLP1E is that the subject "is likely to remain a low-profile individual". Most local newspapers have websites by now. This doesn't change the fact that they are local. Newsday only covers stories in and around Long Island. This makes it local. The last two sources you mentioned are examples of self-published sources which are not appropriate for a BLP. I never claimed all of the coverage was local. In fact, I agree that a bit of it is somewhat substantial. However, all reliable coverage is "in the context of a single event". Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WAX is WAX. And you did not acknowledge that Perez Hilton does not source the article. It was offered as an online source with a global readership to indicate that declaring something "local" is up for interpretation if it has a global readership. However, I was quite surprised that you made the decision here to personally declare Culture Map Houston, a source with a paid staff and editorial oversite an inappropriate "self-pub", specially as this source speaks toward actions of Rebecca Black and Jenna Rose as "reviving an East Coast-West Coast music rivalry.[2] Substantial coverage and not "local" to Long Island... making a comparison of two artists... properly sharing the differences and similarities of the two by speaking about their past works... and unless the reliable sources noticeboard declares it unreliable, it would be quite suitable for use in the Jenna Rose article. Good night. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these sources are blogs. It's debatable whether or not they meet WP:RS. That's the point I was trying to get across. Did you even read the culturemap article? It's clearly satirical and mentions untrue information for the purpose of satire. Do you really believe "a violent and bloody showdown" occurred? Does this article really have to go to WP:RSN to be deemed unreliable? Rogerthat94 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RSN is not required. Being a "blog" is not exactly the nasty you would have others believe. Read WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:USEBYOTHERS. You fail to acknowledge that policy allows that in some circumstance certain blogs are allowed as citations. Perez Hilton.com is one such and is used as a citation for numerous articles that are entertainment related. See links Further, you have yet again failed to acknowledge that PerezHilton.com does not source the article, and that it was only offered as an example of how an online global source is difficult to call "local". Worse, I am still mystified why you made the decision here to personally label CultureMap Houston, a source with a paid staff and editorial oversite as a "blog" or "self-pub" when it is not. Sheesh. Who are you trying to fool?? I read the entertaining CultureMap article. It is an article wherein the author poses a hypothetical future event as a satirical hyperbole. If the reception section of the Jenna Rose article included the sentence "Sarah Rufca of CultureMap Houston offered a tongue-in-cheek article in which she compared Jenna Rose with Rebecca Black, and humorously predicted that were Jenna Rose to release an song lambasting Anaheim Hills, the result could be a violent and bloody showdown between the two."cite being a reviewer's opinion it would be allowed if presented as attributed and cited opinion and not as fact. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are special reliable source guidelines for a BLP. Blogs used as sources in a BLP have to meet much higher standards, and rightly so. I agree that Perez Hilton's website may be an appropriate source for some articles, but not for a BLP. Yes there are some BLPs sourced with it, but two wrongs don't make a right. WP:USEBYOTHERS merits how "sources use a given source," not other Wikipedia articles. I "failed to acknowledge that PerezHilton.com does not source the article" because I didn't see what it would add, and it isn't true. Granted it's only citing an opinion, but it's not considered a reliable source that would discount this article from being a BLP1E, as you allege. I never called PerezHilton.com a local source. I called Newsday a local source, and I stand by that. The list of CultureMap Houston contributors that you keep posting does not mention that any staff is paid. We can reasonably assume that they are, but being paid does not necessarily indicate that the "writers are professionals" so WP:NEWSBLOG doesn't necessarily apply. In addition, I've seen no evidence that content is subject to any news organization's "full editorial control" as required by WP:BLPSPS. I would argue that the author poses more than a hyperbole, and rather something she deems as impossible since this is not 90s hip-hop culture. So claiming she predicted such an event would be taking her anecdote too much out of context. But that doesn't matter at this point. It still only provides coverage of the subject in the context of the one event. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just easily further sourced the followup videos O.M.G. and Don't Give Up, and response to them. Also found a TIME cite, and a source for the website/YouTube/Twitter hacks. So much for BLP1E. Next, I checked, and questioning motives aren't listed in WP:No personal attacks, and anyways, my questions weren't personal - I would have queried any editor whose actions were the same as Rogerthat94. --Lexein (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have missed the "Comment on content, not on the contributor" part, as well as several other parts, but that's neither here nor there. The Time source was just reporting the single "My Jeans" song, which doesn't make any case against this being a BLP1E. Your other source is about Rebecca Black, and it makes only a small mention of Jenna Rose at the end. This does not demonstrate notability. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh - this stuff is easily sourced, and multiply reliably sourced, was my point. And, also, whoosh - WP:NA WP:NPA' isn't intended to silence all discussion of suspect editor behavior, such as possible COI and apparent bias. --Lexein (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC) (fixed obvious typo --Lexein (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, things can be sourced, but they fall under the category of WP:NOT#NEWS. Nothing there shows this is more than a BLP1E. I'm not sure what WP:NA has to do with anything, but WP:NPA mentions "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which I feel applies here, but that really doesn't matter at this point. Obviously you feel differently, but arguing about this isn't helping the AfD discussion. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 1E claim is utterly void, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the word "event". Original research which I'm about to delete aside, other videos she created at a different time provoked a large number of views and a counter-reactions, and press: boom, down goes 1E. --Lexein (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that can be considered reliable covers her outside of the context of the jeans song (which was one event). Views and counter-reactions don't have credence with respect to coverage unless there are reputable independent secondary sources to back them up. BLP1E still applies here. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lexein is correct. The difficulty arises when you refuse to accept that external coverage about Jenna's later activities IS allowed to include references to the work that first brought her to public attention. Is is normal and expected. On cannot write a proper BLP article herein without covering pertinent aspects of an individual's life. This is true for external media coverage as well, even if the subsequent coverage does not approach the level of initial coverage. One would certainly expect that a journalist might include the back-story and write something like "Remember that girl who, similar to Rebecca Black, raised a furor with the publication of My Jeans, an amateur music video that was created (when) and was shown (where) and went viral, and then raised such controversy in (A) and (B) and (C), and remember how she was cyber-hacked (when) and (where)? Well she has (written another tune or made appearances at X, Y & Z)." Such is expected. You need to accept that sources used to verify an aspect of a BLP do not have to be solely about the item they are verifying nor is it mandated that the source be SIGCOV of the verified activity. Different issues. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement "On cannot write a proper BLP article herein without covering pertinent aspects of an individual's life" is exactly what is addressed by WP:PSEUDO. I have no problem creating an article on the song "My Jeans" and redirecting this page there. However, Jenna Rose has not yet demonstrated notability beyond this one event, and should not be the subject of a BLP. A lot of the sources on the current article are from news and blog websites that border on self published, and thus aren't appropriate for a BLP. There are no reliable sources that cover her in the context of a second event. I am aware that sources tend to provide a back story, but they then focus on the subsequent event, thus covering the subjects in the context of the this subsequent event. Some reliable sources mention some details about the subjects's future songs, but they still only cover her in the context of the first event (the jeans song). Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The major concern of the essay WP:PSEUDO is to prevent harm. A problem with citing that essay as a reason to delete is that it would actually prevent the creation of stubs on individuals. If you find something in any article that is harmful, then it should be removed if uncited. But please know, that in building an encyclopedia, we allow stubs grow over time and through editorial contributions. We do not delete stubs for failing an essay. Please get BLP1E out of your head, as it is inapplicable. However... a couple additional sourcable events are 1, she making public performances, and 2, she being cyber-hacked... and then she has also made a few minor television appearances and has written additional songs. As with ANY entertainer, it was an initial notable action that caused/resulted subsequent sourcable events. Every career has to start someplace. We have enough per policy and guideline to allow this one to remain and grow. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy WP:BIO1E specifically mentions WP:PSEUDO. There are no sources appropriate for a BLP that mention the subject in the context of these other events. Careers start somewhere and if the subject is notable, there will be additional sources published that mention them in the context of future events. That hasn't happened to this subject. The lack of any coverage in the last year and a half indicates that it may not. This information would be better served if this article were redirected to one on the Jeans song. Then if the subject becomes notable for something else, it can be recreated. This is what was done with the article on Sandra Fluke and her single event received significantly more coverage than this subject. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is disturbing that you have repeatedly redacted or modified certain of your statements AFTER I post responses... hopefully not done intentionally to confuse others. Also, through your zeal you share yet another error in your choice of argument immediately above {if not again redacted or modified after this response). WP:BIO1E is not a policy... the policy would be the already-repeatedly-explained-as-inapplicable-and-not-to-be-used-in-this-case WP:BLP1E... inapplicable as has it has been repeatedly explained to you that she has coverage in reliable sources for events beyond (even if related in context to) the triggering events. And, rather than being a policy, "BIO1E" is a guideline "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"... and yes it does mention the essay that would limit or curtail stub articles. More telling perhaps, is that in your granting below that many sources discussing her are quite reliable and significant you have (purposely?) ignored her meeting WP:MUSICBIO#1 in that she "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". I do wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to research your (hopefully well meant) arguments and, in learning their flaws and misapplications, gain myself a better insight.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only edited a statement you responded to once before in order to shorten it, and I informed you about it on your talk page. As you recommended against doing so, I have stopped. I did not edit the content of this comment after you had responded. I added a sentence I forgot, and this was not an attempt to confuse anyone. In fact, I re-signed the comment so the time would update, to make it clear this extra sentence had been added. I apologize if this was improper. I meant to refer to WP:BIO1E as a notability guideline, not a policy. This was a genuine mistake. I was just trying to get across that WP:PSEUDO should be treated as more than just an essay, since it has been referred to in a guideline. You are correct about WP:MUSICBIO#1, but wouldn't WP:BLP1E supersede this as WP:MUSICBIO isn't a policy? I know you don't feel WP:BLP1E applies, and you are much more experienced than I am. However it was brought up in the last discussion, and someone else has agreed with it here as well. Yes she has received significant coverage, but it is only in the context of a single event. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not my argument at all. Some of these are incredibly reliable sources. But the reliable sources only cover her in the context of this one event. I was not using the other article as an argument for why this should be deleted. I was providing a successful example of another BLP1E that was redirected to an article on the notable event, and then recreated once the subject was covered in the context of other events. WP:WAX states that comparisons "may form part of a cogent argument." Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • THANK YOU for what must have been a very painful concession by you to admit that "Some of these are incredibly reliable sources", and that many are not local. Read WP:MUSICBIO#1. She's notable. And I am tired of repeating myself. I do hope you keep your promise to accept consensus this time and not renominate a 5th, 6th, or 7th time. Good night. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a concession as I never claimed there weren't reliable sources. I have just claimed these sources cover the subject "only in the context of a single event." I agree that WP:MUSICBIO#1 has been met, however according to WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E this BLP should be redirected to an article on the Jeans song. You can rest assured that I will not renominate if the discussion does not result in a delete. I only submitted this again because I felt the passage of time without coverage of her subsequent work made if clear this was a BLP1E. If I am wrong, there are no circumstances left to change. Our back and forth WP:BLUD probably hurt this discussion, but that is my fault, and not a reason I would renominate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rogerthat94: This has been discussed before, elsewhere, by thoughtful people who have done a lot of editing. See essay WP:What is one event which holds against your position, viz: "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E have not been held by the Wikipedia community to be compelling reasons for deletion." This conclusion is drawn from AfD discussions and closures themselves, so it has a bit more weight than just a random opinion essay. We're not making this stuff up. I like this nutshell from WT:What is one event better: "If a person gains additional coverage in reliable sources beyond the first event that made them famous, then WP:BLP1E no longer applies." See also User:ErrantX/Essays/BLP1E, whose key thrust also opposes your position. Your continued hyperextension of "context of first event" is inappropriate, and more editors than have responded here disagree with you. Oh, and I hope you're not (even unintentionally) pushing BLP2E . --Lexein (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those are great essays, and they both support the conclusion that this article should deleted and redirected to one on the Jeans song. The example given in WP:What is one event of "One event' applied successfully' is very similar to this subject. The assertion in User:ErrantX/Essays/BLP1E that "The thing worth recording is all in association with their notable event - perhaps with some background - judged suitable - context. We can do all of that in event articles, there is little requirement for a biography." applies here. The problem mentioned at the end of that essay also applies to this article. I apologize if I misinterpreted the meaning of context in the policy. However, BLP1E still applies as the sources that cover her in the context of of other events are all problematic with respect to WP:BLPSPS, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:RS. The reliable sources only cover the Jeans song. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First: there is no article on My Jeans, yet. We do not propose redirection when a target does not exist. However, at the close of this ADF I will be happy to set a redirect of that title to that of its creator as being (the primary topic) And second: sorry Roger... but Lexein's response is sound, and your continued insistence on the inapplicable-in-this-case BLP1E flags in the face of wider consensus elsewhere allowing that a triggering notable event can (and logically is almost expected to be) mentioned in subsequent coverage for events which follow that trigger. And while one can find an essay to cover almost any side of a debate within Wikipedia (even I've even written a few myself)... and yes essays are sometimes mentioned within some guidelines to help illustrate such, as essays they are not given the weight of either guideline nor policy. One reads an essay and then determines its applicability to a given situation. His examples soundly apply. Yours are a stretch. Again, sorry. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen many examples of BLP1E discussions where people suggest redirection, and then an article on the notable event is created after this solution is decided upon. If this is deemed an acceptable solution, I would be happy to move over notable information to create this article. I agree with your analysis on triggering events. However, there isn't any coverage of a second event that is in line with WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BLPSPS. Rogerthat94 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, like in an earlier AFD on Swerdlow when you suggested and defended that it be redirected an article on someone else. But do not worry... when this is closed I will create the redirect for My Jeans so that readers seeking information on it can learn more about its creative artist and learn about her and what else she has done... as currently presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner. Thanks for sharing your views. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as per above). I don't often get caught up in AfD, and this action explains why: a nominator with 102 article edits, and a supporter with two article edits (both to do with article deletion). Give me strength. Both of those editors need to get out there and add content (for at least a few years) before settling into this sort of delete mentality. GFHandel ♬  19:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. --Lexein (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTEMP. There seems to be plenty of reliable sources to establish general notability. Even if you think this is a case of WP:BLP1E, which I do not, the one event itself remains in the public consciousness. "My Jeans" was used as bumper music on the most recent episode of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, which brought me to seek out this article. -Dewelar (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Futile Delete !vote - (Yeah, the nom invited me here. Whatever; it won't matter. Easy to see the snow in the forecast.) The spotty coverage of this not-quite viral would-be Rebecca Black still doesn't impress me. Headline, circa March 2011: "Kid posts youtube video, gets laughed at by a few bloggers". Headline, circa any time after that: "Local kid, who was laughed at in 2011, to play at local park" or "Completely different kid has similar experience, 2011 kid mentioned". Whatev. It's going to be a keep. As for all of the drama above: TL;DR, lol, ttfn. yawn. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Straightforward WP:BLP1E, despite the insipid hyper-inclusionism that usually surrounds these sorts of articles and AfDs. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again? Really? [3] [4] and elsewhere cover her. Live television interview also at [5] Performed at a charity event and was mentioned, although not much. [6] Dream Focus 12:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 6 unique Newsday articles cited in the article: first four clustered around the same event, fifth IMHO a new event, the last clearly another new event. Re your 2012 WPIX interview link above, I wish TV stations archived their own pop culture interviews on YouTube, so we could cite them as RS. Just added the related December 2012 WPIX website item, though the song video was IMHO sadly undeserving of Ms. Warwick's involvement, IMHO. Some of this interview with Warwick and son Damon Elliot is priceless, and some is excruciating. --Lexein (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Straightforward meeting of WP:GNG, despite the insipid hyper-deletionism that usually surrounds these sorts of articles and AfDs. Most of human knowledge is subjectively stupid to someone.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion arguments invoking BLP1E are misreading said guideline. From BLP1E: "Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.", the last three words are linked to an essay which defines low-profile, saying "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile." BLP1E is not correctly applied to artists, authors, entertainers, that is, creative professionals who actively seek media attention for themselves and their works. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, I see this is discussed above. Newsday is in fact non-local enough to provide evidence that this is not a low-profile individual, nevermind Time. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great reminder of both points above, which had not really jumped out at me. --Lexein (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see I had previously closed an AFD on this for its first discussion, but now at this present time the subject matter seems to have ample coverage among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Cirt! Feel like applying some of that source-fu that you do so well? I sense that you could find a few more sources that we haven't seen or considered reliable yet. Not to put you on the spot er nuthin'. --Lexein (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, got a bit of a headache at the moment, maybe later. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BLP1E-1: The sources do not cover her in the context of a single event. Rather, it was the single event that prompted the sources to then cover her life outside of the context of the event. This biography should have originated from a Wikipedia article on the event as a major subtopic of that event BLP1E-2: There's no doubt that she likely will return to a low-profile individual. However, she actively has sought to not remain a low-profile individual and in fact reached being a high-profile individual. Some people do not want the limelight that comes with a BLP1E event and it is those people who BLP1E is meant to protect. BLP1E-3: She is central to the event, so it is the case her role within it is substantial. You could say that the event is not significant in that shoot to fame via You Tube happens all the time. But the event significance and whether it is well-documented depends on the amount of reliable source coverage.-- Jreferee (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rogerthat94, I think you would have a better chance of deleting this biography if you created a Wikipedia article about the event My Jeans, add some of the sourced bio info to the My Jeans article in addition to the event, and then propose to delete/merge Jenna Rose into My Jeans stating that there is not enough life information beyond what already is in the My Jeans article to justify a need for fuller treatment of the biography subtopic Jenna Rose per Wikipedia:Summary style. Since the My Jeans article would be about the event, there would not be that much biograpy information about Jenna Rose relevant to that event. In that way, you can restrict how much biographical information is posted in Wikipedia about Jenna Rose (assuming that you can get Jenna Rose redirected to My Jeans.) -- Jreferee (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion is provocative, in that it prompts disruptive behavior: "you can restrict how much biographical information", flying in the face of continued ongoing, year by year coverage in RS of both the artist and the music (no matter its aesthetic appeal to us). It is egging on an inexperienced and narrowly focused editor with a very low edit count, and a vanishingly low count of contributions to articles, who has created no articles at all, to deliberately disregard and bypass N, GNG, V, BLP, etc. We've determined, and sourced, that there are multiple events in multiple years in multiple RS, so none of this one-event discussion is relevant. Just sayin'. --Lexein (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is instructive. Not much biographical information would be needed in a My Jeans event article to provide major facts/details about the event and place the event topic in context. If consensus redirected the Jenna Rose article to a My Jeans article, the My Jeans article main topic itself would restrict how much biographical information can be place in the My Jeans article - there would be no disruption or deliberate disregard or by pass of N, GNG, V, BLP, etc. Keeping the nominator and other editors who are reading this AfD in the dark to continue to believe a best course of action is to list Jenna Rose AfD nominations is not helpful. Determining whether there is a need for fuller treatment of a biography subtopic Jenna Rose in a separate article in view of a My Jeans event article per Wikipedia:Summary style is an issue that is different from BLP1E and would be a productive approach. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with MQS' verdict --he is the most reliable judge I know about the sufficiency of sources in this area. I also note Silk Tork's keep close in the previous AfD. If she was notable in 2011 she remains notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"MQS" would be user User:MichaelQSchmidt, (with whom I agree here) most commonly displayed as Schmidt. --Lexein (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenna_Rose_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1080179017"