Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Ruth (singer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Although this AfD shows consensus for deletion, I think it would be acceptable to draftspace it for improvement and resubmission via DRV if DESiegel and/or NancyR123 requests it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Ruth (singer)[edit]

Nancy Ruth (singer) (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)

WP:BLP of a musician, written with an advertorial lean and evincing no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for anything. Further, this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources and blogs, with very little evidence of any reliable source coverage that's genuinely about her: the closest thing to an RS in the entire bunch is a community weekly newspaper which namechecks her existence in the lineup for a local music festival, but fails to be about her to any non-trivial degree. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; a strong notability claim, and the real media coverage required to support it, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am sorry, I do not understand. 8 days ago I received a notification that the page had been reviewed by BigHaz, why did not any of these observations occur at that time?--Ane wiki (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say it, Ane wik but some reviewers are more meticulous than others. The view of a single reviewer, no matter how experienced, cannot preempt the formation of a community consensus to delete. On the other hand, any editor may nominate any page for deletion. The fact that one editor has so nominated this article does not mean that the consensus will be for deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I disagree with the implication that my New Page Patrol of the article (not exactly a "review") was less than "meticulous", the substance of this comment is precisely correct (responding here as the article creator posted on my Talk page as well with the same question, and I was on holiday at the time). As I recall, and it was quite some time ago by now, I felt that this subject was in the grey area which many musicians are in, but was happy enough that she just passes, rather than just failing, the relevant standards. Most certainly, though, the fact that a new page is reviewed by a user doesn't mean that the article is safe always and forever from deletion discussions, should another user see things in a different light. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of those represent reliable or WP:GNG-passing sources. The vast majority of them are either primary sources or blogs, which cannot be used to support notability at all — and the few that do count as reliable sources don't add up to enough reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to be specific, Bearcat? I don't think any of the sources I listed above are blogs. I count at least 6 that are from fully reliable and independent sources, and contain significant comment on Ruth. I see several others that are of some limited value in establishing notability. I gave specific evaluations of each source. Which ones do you disagree with? How many sources do you think would be "enough"? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, In the interest of objectivity and full disclosure, I indicated above those sources i thought of limited or no value in establishing notability. Would you please indicate those you agree contribute usefully to notability, if any? Oh, and you don't mention in your nomination doing any WP:BEFORE searches. What searches for additional sources did you make, if any? This is a responsibility of the nominator at an AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think any of the sources above are blogs? Not even the one (Spectra Jazz News) that has "Blogspot" right in its URL? (And aside from that, Jazz Weekly is on WordPress, which is also a blogging platform.)
Let's see what else: Guide to Malaga is not a media outlet, but a tourism-promotion website — and Q&A interviews, in which the subject is speaking about herself, cannot be used to support notability at all. WN is not a media outlet, but an aggregator which simply redistributes content from other sources — and what it's redistributing in this instance is not a notability-conferring media outlet either, but a cable television community channel. Womex falls under primary sources, because it's not a media outlet but a PR site which allows artists to repost their own self-published EPK adverts. Costa del Party is not a reliable source media outlet, but the website of a party planning company with which she's had a direct financial affiliation: a primary source. Scottyanow: not a reliable source media outlet, but an amateur hobbyist jazz reviewer's own self-published website.
So what we have for reliable sources is La Voz de Hoy and The Coast Reporter, which are both community weekly newspapers of the type that can be used for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources but cannot be the foundation of a GNG claim in and of themselves even if she were in any way the subject of The Coast Reporter piece at all, and AllMusic, which as you noted is just the track listing of the album (in what's essentially a directory in which every album that has ever been recorded at all gets an entry regardless of whether it clears our notability standards or not) but contains no actual content about either Nancy Ruth or her album (which is what's actually required for an AllMusic entry to assist in bolstering notability rather than just reverifying existence.) And even if we did grant it a GNG point just because it's AllMusic, it still takes more than just one GNG-counting source to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
. No I don't think any of them are blogs. Blogspot is a publication platform. it is most often used for blogs, but it is used for other things, also. Spectra Jazz News is not a blog because it is the regular publication of a business about its operations. It would be reliable for anything where it was independent. In this case, unfortunately it is not independent. You say that Q&A interviews, in which the subject is speaking about herself, cannot be used to support notability at all. This is not correct. Introductory statements by the interviewer can help ,establish notability, depending on their content. There is nothing in being a cable-TV channel which makes something not a reliable source. You are confusing "primary source" with "non-independent source" by the way. Jazz Weekly appears to be a professionally run publication with signed reviews, paid advertising, and editorial control. The use of Wordpress does not make it unreliable, that is merely a tool. Scottyanow is not an amateur hobbyist jazz reviewer but a professional of some decades standing, notable enough to have his own article here, and comes in via the "expert" rule as an acceptable self-publication. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I didn't say that cable channels can't be used to support notability — an overgeneralization which would unwisely wipe out sources like CNN, MSNBC, Sky News or CBC News Network. I said that community channels — the Canadian equivalent to public access television — cannot be used to support notability. The reason for this is the same reason why community weekly newspapers cannot be the foundation of a GNG claim in and of themselves: they're highly prone to granting coverage to presidents of church bake sale committees and elementary school parent-teacher associations, organizers of the local film festival, teenagers who tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, and other "local human interest" topics of no encyclopedic value. They can be used for some supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has already been satisfied by stronger and more widely distributed sources, but it cannot be argued that GNG has been passed because coverage on a community channel or in the local Pennysaver happens to exist.
Secondly, I'm not sure where you're finding the distinction between "a blog" and "the regular publication of a business about its operations" — a business writing about its own operations is precisely one of the things blogging can be and is used for. So no, the Blogspot source is neither a reliable one nor "not a blog" just because it's published by a business rather than an underemployed millennial.
Thirdly, interviews do work like community channels and pennysavers: they can be used for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by better sources, but they are not and cannot be used to confer GNG points per se.
And no, I'm not confusing "primary sourcing" with "not-independent sourcing", either — not-independent sourcing is a kind of primary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bearcat, a blog does not contribute to notability because it is a self-published source and so is not reliable. A publication having the form of a blog but that is not self-published does not come under the ban on blogs as sources. WP:RS says: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Similarly, a business's own web site has generally been considered reliable for non-controversial data, or for matters where their self-interest is not involved. That a firm uses a blog-style format or blogging tools does not make their site any less (or any more) reliable than if it were on a more traditional company site. But since I already said that in this case this site is not independent, it doesn't really matter if it is considered a blog or not, it doesn't add to notability, although it should be reliable for the content sourced to it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability says: An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported. (Emphasis added) This was the distinction I was trying to make between the independent comments, often in the introduction, and Q&A body of an interview. Is that clearer? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:ADVOCACY; has an appearance of having been written by someone with a close connection to the subject -- note the use of "Nancy" in the article copy. Notability is marginal, if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of first names is a common error in people used to current pop journalism and not to Wikipedia. It need not mean clsoe affiliation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Note that WP:ADVOCACY does not suggest deletion as a means of dealing with such content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my list of sources above, i somehow missed http://www.cadencejazzmagazine.com/membersonly/admin/assets/CadenceApril2017%20.pdf (p.164), a full page review from a reliable independent source. Nor did Bearcat comment on it above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I reviewed all of the references, did a quick web search, and I disagree that the subject has received a substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. It's a delete, even before considering the potential COI issues. Rentier (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I took note of all the back and forth between users DES and Bearcat before I started checking references on my own. Coverage for the sake of coverage isn’t necessarily notability (please note the criteria specifies that subjects may be notable rather than are notable). There simply isn’t much significant third party coverage—I emphasize significant—to indicate more than existence. The references are fairly run of the mill for any artist who aspires to achieve recognition, taking advantage of the many online opportunities to be listed, interviewed, reviewed, etc.. That’s not to say such sources are unreliable. Just unimportant, really, for indicating that a subject has received the kind of independent recognition that establishes wikipedia notability. That it was revealed that this page was created for promotional purposes further solidifies my ivote. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the sources mentioned above, almost all of them are either mere notices or unreliable. The analysis given seems to show not notable, rather than notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I received an email from someone claiming to be Ruth's manager, claiming to have additional sources. See User talk:TeamNancy#Notability of Nancy Ruth (singer) for the email and my response. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the press clippings that are not online, I tried to explain as Mr DESiegel suggested. I hope that will help determine her notability.
  • ”Nancy Ruth. Nancy Ruth”. Author: Ben Avern - Attractions Magazine. December 1998 - Review of her first album. - offline -
  • ”Nancy Ruth”. Author: Barry Newman. - Cosmic Debris Musician Magazine, page 6, May 1998 -Article about Nancy Ruth's career up to that point; author's prose, with interview inserts - offline -.
  • ”Veteran musician Ruth returns home to find a strong local following”. - Times Colonist. August 1998. Brief review of his career and of his presentation in Victoria, Canada.
  • ”Jazz met Spaanse `touch´.” Author: Door Klaas Koopman - Dutch News - September 19, 2008. - Article about Ruth on her tour of the Netherlands, CD release ”Me Quedo”
  • ”Nancy Ruth Trio fra Canada i Kulturministeriet lordag” - Djursland Portalen. September 17, 2011 . Article about Nancy and her career, on tour with Nancy Ruth Trio, in Denmark.
  • ”Flamenco, jazz og pop med Nancy Ruth Trio”. Viborg NYT, September 2011 - About Nancy and her career, on tour with Nancy Ruth Trio, in Denmark - is not the same article as the previous -

TeamNancy (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nancy_Ruth_(singer)&oldid=1136471277"