Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabelle Reine

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. Tone 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Reine[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Virtually zero in-depth coverage, so she fails WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the outcome of this discussion will likely affect In The Reine too Spiderone 13:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have PROD'ded that album article, which was a procedural choice so the album is not still sitting around if/when this musician article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may be an autobiography or a COI creation by a promo-only editor, as the article creator, Beeb28, seems to only work on articles/drafts promoting her, her songs or her record company Beeb Music. Netherzone (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really wonder how articles like this get through the AfC process. There is a committed team of volunteers there, helping new Wikipedia editors write articles with proper formatting and grammar and presentation. And yet somehow nobody on that team does a basic notability check? Or as I have seen argued a few times, an author sends their AfC article to mainspace prematurely, in which case the AfC team needs tougher oversight processes. As for Ms. Reine, I wish her luck as she launches her music career, and she is surely pounding away at the usual self-created streaming and social media services to spread the word. But she has no significant and reliable media coverage to come anywhere close to the requirements for musical notability. Charitably it is too soon for an article; less charitably this is another attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - User:Doomsdayer520 - This article was not approved by AFC. This article was in AFC, and was then moved into article space twice by the author, not by AFC reviewers, and was moved back into draft space once by a New Page Reviewer. There is an incorrect tag on such articles, which states that they were approved in AFC, which actually means that they were in AFC and were moved into article space. The tag may also correctly be on articles that were accepted, but where the script did not finish cleanup. In this case the tag is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon - Thank you for the information, but it is the argument that I noted as having seen before (from you, I believe, in other AfDs), and it all falls within the need for tougher oversight that I suggested. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doomsdayer520, that is part of the reason that articles approved at AfC still have to go through an NPP review (in many cases). Some advanced editors automatically get their moves marked as autopatrolled (this seems to be pretty consistent among Sysops who work at AfC). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others - I have been convinced elsewhere that this glitch in the AfC process is not particularly common and it was unfair of me to imply that it happens a lot. Some of us are discussing possible procedural ideas elsewhere. Now back to the discussion at hand... ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree with the notion that the sources are not sourced well enough. everything is located there. I see countless articles with little or zero sources at all and they are there forever. I also disagree with the implication that I wrote this article with the intent to self promote. I am a fan of the artist and I was doing it to help out the artist and fans I have no direct connection with the artist. so i don't appreciate that accusation. Beeb28 14:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the other stuff exists fallacy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Netherzone, "seems to only work on articles/drafts promoting her, her songs or her record company Beeb Music" is not true, firstly I again want to make clear I am a fan with no direct connection and that I wrote things based on the internet. my username was in reference to the artist because I like the music. I have worked on quite a few other musical wikis like Keith Tippet and Gordian Knot. The reason why it seems like I have only worked on one topic is I was working on connecting everything together for a seamless experience if anyone came onto the page Beeb28 15:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeb28 (talk • contribs)

I did not make the direct accusation against Beeb28 (though I do think the article's writing style is too promotional), but I think we can accept Beeb28's claims of good faith. However, that still accomplishes nothing for the musician's notability, which is what needs to be discussed here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeb28: thank you for your comments, and for your interest in Wikipedia and your efforts here. WP is an encyclopedia, it's not a venue for promoting non-notable content just because one is a fan. That is what websites, social media or sites like LinkedIn, etc. are for. In my comment below, I've linked some things (as have the editors above) - these may be helpful in familiarizing you with some of WP's policies and guidelines. Regarding my comment about a possible autobio or COI, it struck me as quite odd that your username pretty much matches the name of her music company, ~~however, I'll take your word for it that you are not a directly connected editor.~~ Netherzone (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a BEFORE search, I could find nothing in the way of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources WP:RS independent of the subject WP:IS, therefore does not meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG. Also does not pass WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:CREATIVE, as all I could find was user-submitted content such as social media, music streaming/downloading/purchasing sites, and zero reviews, or articles about her, no notable awards nor chart placements. Netherzone (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
deletewith fire yikes. There is 0 credibility to the sources and there's barely even a claim of notability, much less a substantiated one. Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note my delete vote includes all the other crap related to this in mainspace, which has since been moved to draft by the creator, to avoid continued tendetious editing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, "delete with fire yikes" this is a very inflammatory remark. I appreciate everyone else being civil with the process but you are not. I'm not a veteran wikipedia user so I make mistakes Beeb28 16:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Beeb28 - Harry S. Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are other deletion techniques used in AFD besides fire, such as silver bullets. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability criteria. This article is part of a walled garden of articles about this artist and her works. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article appears to have been reference-bombed with unreliable sources, including LinkedIn, YouTube, and Spotify. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and comments above; if this article cannot be sourced to anything other than Tidal, Spotify and social media sites then it should not be retained Spiderone 15:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you all for the feedback. I will use that to make sure I do a better job at finding sources. I just ask that the whole thing not be deleted, but instead drafted so I can work on improving the article in the future Beeb28 16:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeb28: Could you please explain why all of the files you uploaded to Commons in relation to this artist, her music and her record company are credited to you as "own work" and with either Isabelle Reine or Beeb Music credited as the "Author"? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes I put the artist's name and/or label in the copyright section. and I had emailed the label for permission to use the images. I'm not used to Wikipedia so i don't exactly know how to use commons. I have since changed it to fix the error. Thanks Beeb28 17:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeb28: If I'm not mistaken, you need to send that email regarding licencing permissions to OTRS at Commons, if you have not already done so. Editors, please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: You are right. The permissions granted by the owner should be sent for review which takes up to 2 weeks. Also the guys at the OTRS do not accept permission sent from generic email accounts, they require an official verifiable email account.Less Unless (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per nom (and others). The sourcing is not of a standard to be considered acceptable and quick search reveals virtually no useful results. Eagleash (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV, no IRS. Fails all notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per author's request or delete but in either case, SALT so she can't return to mainspace out of process a third time. StarM 01:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole COI/(UPE?) spam-fest...

-- Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Cabayi - The last six pages in your list are drafts. Deletion of drafts is considered at MFD, and my guess is that the drafts would not be deleted if a request were made to delete them. Notability is not considered at MFD, because one of the uses of draft space is for a subject that does not currently meet notability, and are normally not deleted simply for COI. Drafts are typically deleted for disruptive editing, and we haven't seen disruptive editing here. If you want to comment on the drafts to recommend that they be rejected, that is all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, as you've already pointed out, it's one "walled garden of articles about this artist and her works." I believe WP:NOTBURO & WP:NOTSUICIDE apply. Cabayi (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per everyone else above. No evidence of notability. The sourcing is trash. Spotify and the like does not establish notability. They never did and they never will. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this 18-year-old is not yet a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 15 December 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.