Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Presley

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Presley

Amelia Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BAND. Failure to launch scenario. scope_creep^Talk 09:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no evidence of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. The only conceivable alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Highway Sisters, but I've just taken a look at the band's page and nominated it for deletion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. Plenty of sources cited. It meets #1 & #4 of WP:MUSICBIO It definitely needs cleanup though. almaniacopedia (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC) — Almaniacopedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Very weak keep. The article seems to have sources that don't belong, such a Itunes, but she does have a history, and a couple of other verifiable sources. The majority does seem to be original research, however. LePanini (Talk) 17:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. KidAd talk 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Keep She seems notable, but I don't see sales figures for her albums, awards won, mentions in major media outlets. Serving in the military is neither here nor there, neither is being at an audition for American Idol. Sounds like she's almost a big star, but not yet. Perhaps a bit too early in her career for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO - the fact that minor details like auditioning for American Idol and being mentioned in a magazine article are included suggested clutching at straws to establish notability, but the bar does not seem to be met. Melcous (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-Meets WP:MUSICBIO This article meets the following guidelines of WP:MUSICBIO:

• ”Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2]“ (She has been the subject of MULTIPLE published works such as newspaper both online and print, magazine articles, etc)”

• “ Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”(References have been added to support this)

Musicians are considered notable if they meet one of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. She meets two, possibly more. It just seems that there has been a lot of deletion of the page without anyone actually looking for the references which were fairly easy to find with a google search. Open to feedback on references that I’ve added. American Idol isn’t really something that should be in there though. Maybe someone added it because she was on TV? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedDirtRedBird: You can only do one keep. scope_creep^Talk 22:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Sorry about that. I’ve deleted the previous one, now. 21:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedDirtRedBird: You need to provide evidence that she meets you criteria. Just stating that she meets it, doesn't really work. scope_creep^Talk 10:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The weight of notability is not just on those who !vote to keep the article. The same weight is applied to those who !vote to delete. Prove she is not notable. Don't just say she doesn't meet criteria. What criteria? How does she not meet criteria? Give examples of how one might meet criteria. If a BEFORE search was conducted then one should be able to argue the results of that search easily.The burden of proof is on both sides in an AfD. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-

I have to agree with Tsistunagiskathat. It seems people are more caught up on arguing to delete this page so that they can feel as thought they’ve won, whereas we should all just be trying to find references without bias. Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020

@Scope creep: The evidence is in the references on the page. Can you specify how to prove she meets the criteria further than that? I thought it would be pretty clear. Thanks

• Keep per sources on the page: coverage in The Colorado Springs Gazette, The Loveland Reporter-Herald, The Stillwater News-Press and American Songwriter. There are a lot of blogs referenced in the article, but I think the print newspapers and magazine demonstrate some notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO and sources provided above by Toughpigs are all interviews which are not third-party sources. GSS ^💬 18:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not necessarily true about interviews by notable sources. Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020

• Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WG:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO and the references do not seem independent to me. Westminster88 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing much evidence toward why this article does not meet criteria. It is not sufficient to simply state that an article doesn’t meet criteria without showing that articles used are not independent. Read the definitions for all of these terms and you’ll see that many of the references listed are or could be considered notable sources (even interviews by notable sources). Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020

• Comment Lets examine the first 12 reference. I've removed the extensive external per WP:ELNO and the links to self-published sources like Medium per WP:NOT/WP:SPIP where anybody can post. Looking at the first 12 references.

[1]. This is self-published blog. There is no editorial control, so it is not valid references, it is Non-RS.

[2] This is her artist page on his A&R publishing site. By definition it can be used to establish WP:MUSICBIO.

[3] An announcement.

[4] An interview.

[5] An interview.

[6] A tiny album review. Not in-depth.

[7] A small profile page as she former coast guard women. Not in-depth.

[8] This is a blog. NON-RS. Fails WP:SPIP

[9] An announcement.

[10] Profile page on a self-hosted, a blog. Fails WP:SPIP

There is a duplicate. It doesn't add up to much. 2 Non-RS, 3 blogs, 2 announcements, 2 profiles, 2 interviews. So out of the 12 references and the rest which is clear case of WP:CITEKILL is 2 interviews, which are primary. There are no secondary sources, no social media coverage, no coverage, no international coverage. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by social media coverage? How is social media coverage considered reputable while other sources such as American Songwriter are not, according to your comments. Please look at any celeb page on Wikipedia and you’ll see that most of the sources are based on a bio or interview. That’s how information is gained about anyone. The difference is that the sources are reputable. You can’t say that it’s not reputable simply because it is based on an interview or mentions part of a bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDirtRedBird (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedDirtRedBird: Please sign your comments by using ~~~~. The software will convert it into a full signature. For new artists it is indicative of a flourishing career. If they are young artists and want a career in the music industry then they must have a good social media presence as that is fans. All musicians work like that now. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Here is her social media. Again, just a simple search... => www.facebook.com/ameliapresleymusic ^[1] & www.instagram.com/ameliapresleymusic ^[2] I feel like I’m the only one doing any searches, honestly. As someone mentioned above. It’s not just on the “keep” voters to find this information. Also, thank you for helping me with signature. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I am going with the rationale both Scope_creep & Melcous have put forward thus far. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2020 (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.