Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katja Glieson (2nd nomination)

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. Overall consensus is that the subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, thus qualifying for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Glieson

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of another editor who went to the wrong venue for deletion. I will notify him so he can make his formal case for deletion in the proper venue. Safiel (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many thanks User:Safiel Sorry for the inappropriate venue! My thoughts are that in the previous discussion, that there was no recognition that this page has only been written by the subjects manager and the manager alone, with no other contributors, and seems to only exist as a promotional tool. In addition, there seemed to be some consensus that the subject is somehow notable but I have failed to see any evidence of notability. Having a bunch of articles written about a video that the subject appeared in doesn't seem to satisfy the notability requirements on Wikipedia and I have seen no discussion proving otherwise. There have been no reputable news sources covering the subject specifically (eg. a Huffington Post article about subject), and those articles that do exist are only from random blogs who seem to have regurgitated a press release by subject's representation, and only cover an insignificant release by the subject that has not charted on the Billboard 100 (or similar), not received radio play and not received any other notable press attention. Also, upon reviewing the previous AfD process, it almost seems like there was more a discussion about the reason it was proposed for deletion in the first place - ie. a bad faith nomination by an editor who was angry that their page was deleted (because their subject wasn't notable) and simply wanted to come on and find another page which also seemed un-notable and nominate it for deletion to prove a point. I can understand this isn't desirable behavior but I wonder if the desire to reject this sort of behavior played into the reasoning and final decision to keep (although I assure you I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just offering a possible reason for the discussion not having explored all the issues). This, therefore, would seem to be the first discussion actually looking at the issues of whether the subject should have a Wikipedia page or not. I have no ulterior motive, from an objective standpoint I don't see the benefit of this page on Wikipedia, especially as it is entirely written by an editor with a close professional relationship. If subject was that notable, wouldn't she have gained enough recognition in the media for a completely partial and non-connected editor to create the article? That doesn't seem to be the case here, again, the only content being written by someone unlikely to be objective and neutral. The question is, would the article even exist if the subject's 'manager' hadn't written it? Jslix201 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a mess. According to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Katja Glieson, this page is proposed for deletion because of WP:COI (which is not suitable grounds for deletion) and lack of notability and being "of little value" to WP. The page was already proposed for deletion six months ago and the result was keep. WP:BADFAITHONOM was alleged and I have to concur. The nominator for today's AfD is a SPA opened earlier this month who has only edited this article and asked an editor who voted keep on the first AfD to reconsider. The nominator for the original AfD, while not a SPA, has had few edits and got in an edit war over this article over his assertion that subject is not notable (ANI). OK I have just done way too much research for this AfD, but my opinion is subject, although weak, meets the minimum requirements for GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. None of this seems to deal with the issues I've raised, or provides any evidence of notability, or of the article being in existence for any other reason than the subject's manager decided to create it for promotional purposes (which he seemingly has admitted to on the Talk page of the article!). It is true that WP:COI is not suitable grounds for deletion, but surely the motives for the creation of the article should be taken into account, and the point that it's CLEAR that subject is not notable enough that anyone other than the manager himself would have written the article. Just because an article was voted to be kept previously, does not mean that the issues have been thoroughly discussed or any evidence has been presented aside from opinions. Also, I believe it's policy to not discriminate against newer users? Thus making the argument that I have only edited this page moot, and, with all due respect to you, should not then devalue or dismiss my logical arguments for deletion. Jslix201 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I concur with the previous AfD. The subject meets GNG via sources provided. Weakly meets GNG, but still meets GNG. I'm not discriminating toward newer users; It's common at AfD to point out when people contributing to discussion have few or no votes outside of subject, indicating SPA. There's even a template to add that information (Template:Spa) but I think it's better to simply state outright. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the creator of the article, I felt I should say something and express my opinion. I was not present in previous discussion. I did try to follow the procedure for neutrality but do have to concede that it is unlikely that the article would have been created if it were not for me and I did originally find it difficult to be neutral. I'm sure you're used to dealing with sketchy music industry managers who try to get their artists published on WP. I don't feel I fit into that category and have no qualms about being honest. Katja is a great artist and has done some great shows and been in a notable video. But all of this discussion is tiresome and messy as you say, and frankly I would prefer that the article be deleted and only recreated at a later date when notability is not in question (if that should occur) and someone else unconnected to the subject (ie. Not myself) would feel compelled to create it so that the content is not written by me at all. It is true I have been the sole contributor to the article (other than cleanups) from a content point of view, and I don't like that fact. It was not my intention for it to be that way. I only want her to be on WP when she's truly and unquestionably notable. I don't know the weight of the opinion of the creator of the article and frankly am quite surprised at those voting to keep it given the arguments set forth in this and the previous discussions. But I thought I should say, in good faith, that I have no objection to deletion. Benjackson77 (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment —I'm not sure why "if it hadn't been for the person who created this article, this article never would have been created" is an argument. The article was created almost two years ago and has been edited by 48 accounts/people. In all likelihood, given her exposure, particularly with the recent meme, someone would have made an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an argument persay, just an assumption of fact given A. I've been the only contributor of content (despite the 48 editors) and B. The creator of the meme (and performer in the other 3 rap battle videos) has not had an article created about her, so I'm guessing it hasn't sparked enough interest for an article. Benjackson77 (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....why would anyone else create an article about her if there already was an article about her? —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering the article solely on its current condition and merits, I see several reliable sources that cover Glieson, so the article passes WP:GNG.

Addressing the concerns of the nominator: a conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article. If a new article is created that is blatantly promotional but can be fixed—rewritten in a neutral tone with reliable sources—we fix it rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Yes, the original editor may have had a conflict of interest, but many independent editors have worked on the article since then. That mitigates any concerns that may have existed at the creation of the article over a year ago. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! That's good news! So given this, can we remove the warning about conflict of interest? Having that at the top makes the article seem dubious and as you say, there have been other editors and the issues have been resolved a long time ago since I created it. I just wanted to be honest and clear that if there is an ongoing problem I'm not adverse to deleting it if needed, to act in good faith. Benjackson77 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I procedurally nominated this on behalf of another user, the subject satisfies WP:GNG and I see no valid reason for deletion. Safiel (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references establish notability at a glance (unless someone who's dug into them comes up with evidence otherwise). De-promofy and this should be fine as a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient RSes: she's mentioned in numerous non-trivial articles. It passes GNG. I agree with David that it needs de-promofying but that's a separate issue and no hindrance to remaining.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several of the Rses do not mention the artist by name, but a handful do. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that the references provided within the article are sufficent to establish WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pretty much my last AFD comment - The promo needs removing but overall notability is there and IMHO it simply needs tidying not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 28 May 2015 (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.