Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita White

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 keep. Sandstein 11:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anita White

[edit]

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

Anita White (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)

A glaring case of WP:BIO1E. Notability is not based upon word/name association. Also clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. She deserves a mention on the Lady A page. KidAd (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the nominator about her not being notable just because of word association. Its also a case of failing notability due to the basis of her article hinging on a single event. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - per nom. Her entire notability is based on a notable band trimming the second part of their name, and that happening to be the same as hers. She already has a mention at Lady A. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted - Same reasons as DOOMSDAYER below. Passions seem to be burning high around the topic, for various reasons, and I'd also like to stay out of it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Definitely a case of WP:BIO1E, making the news a few days ago for the unfortunate use of her stage name by someone more notable. As a purely local DJ/singer she has little notability of her own outside of the Lady Antebellum/Lady A story. She might deserve a very brief mention at their article; the hatnote currently at the top of their article should be removed if/when this one is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Retracted - I voted when the Lady A/Lady A dispute had just recently hit the news, and concur that more sources on the blues singer are emerging at a rapid rate. It appears that music journalists were inspired to investigate her music career just in the past two days when they never did so before, so she is still benefiting from a controversy. In any case, I am bowing out of this debate because personal accusations, against the country band and Wikipedia voters, are emerging in the discussion below. Keep me out of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Wait for now. It seems she may have a notable music career (as more and more secondary sources and reliable articles start talking about her). I think it might be best to wait a few weeks and see where things go after the Lady A name change. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sourcing issue. Even if she is featured in a New York Times profile about her life leading up to this news cycle, she will still only be notable for one event. KidAd (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree. In my opinion being the subject of a profile in the NYT and similar high-profile media automatically achieves WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. literally no one knew who she was until Lady Antebellum changed their name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Paintspot said as the sole voice of reason so far, Lady A probably has a notable music career. We know perfectly well that she's had a 30 year career with various acclaim, which are therefore probably mostly in print and not instantly visible on google, and that *nobody here* has lifted a finger to even look for. You can't say it's not a sourcing issue when you have *no clue* and *don't want to know* what sources exist. It is just an aggressively nonsensical agenda from the church of deletionism to presume to predict the future, saying that no future article could possibly be written that could name another historical source or expand her notability, even out of this one event or that the event couldn't expand. My goodness we are living in times that are defined by people who are notable for single events anyway. Her website names a few print sources and reviews, and I don't even know what they all are exactly because she's spent her career working more than promoting. She is not purely local, not that that is a disqualifier either. She has a whole other fan base in, and has published at least one concert album from, New Orleans—and has been the cover feature of a 50 year old blues magazine in Sweden. And she has a whole history just in social activism alone, organizing events that sound substantial and might have local newspaper coverage. But the ones I have found via google and cited into the article do allude to a lot more of them in older print. — Smuckola(talk) 04:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What a load of nonsense. No individual should have a page for "probably having a notable [anything]." Refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS about the so-called church of deletionism without at least making a case for your blind inclusionism and utter disregard of any recognized policy. KidAd (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Smuckola and Paintspot. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/wait per per Smuckola and Paintspot: more sources are emerging to confirm her notability, and reports suggest she is the owner of the trademark "Lady A". It's bitterly ironic that the all-white previously-Confederacy-referencing Lady Antebellum have chosen to take her name, and it would also be ironic if they also eclipse her here. -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a music career isn't one event, the fact that the sources are even mentioning her music career is tantamount to that, if she had a unknown career she would not be getting the attention. GuzzyG (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple albums, appearances, and media mentions over a decades-long music career merited a Wikipedia article even before the current controversy. White 720 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Smuckola, Paintspot and White 720. When someone has a pre-established career in the same industry, the newer entity should have done their research to avoid the potential conflict. The artists formerly known as Lady Antebellum will clearly lose any lawsuit about name priority which is brought against them and will be forced to vacate. Autopatch (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If she really weren't notable, then why are there 10+ news articles focusing on her music? Skjn (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Month-old user with 11 edits to their name. Maybe not an WP:SPA, but just pointing that out. KidAd (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rolling Stone and American Songwriter are reliable sources, writing specifically about White and her music. Whether that coverage is related to a news event is not particularly germane. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis isn't about being "deletionist", It's about holding her to same standard in Notability (music) that every other musical artist has to follow. Which last I checked doesn't involve naming disputes. If she is only notable for the naming dispute and not her music then she is not covered by Notability (music) IMO and it would definitely put the subject and her in the category of not being notable for trivial coverage/single event coverage. Just like a third tier otherwise not notable sports player or low rung actor wouldn't suddenly become notable enough for an article just because they died in a horrific way that got some news coverage for it etc etc. So, the question is, what exists about her supposedly storied legendary soul & blues award winning career that we can use then? Album wise, the only one on her website is Doin' Fine. I was able to a review of it on Blues Blast. Which BTW says a lot of the songs are repetitive. That's about it though. One review that says her music is repetitive. AllMusic has a profile on her but hasn't reviewed her albums. It does list a few other albums though, one of which "Loved, Blessed and Blues" that again I was only able to find a review of on Blues Blast and this time they called it "Nothing to write home about here." It's weird that for a "legendary" blues artist that is suppose to be notable for her musical career that's all there is and that her music only got lukewarm reviews from a single source. Has she been covered by Rolling Stone for anything else besides the name conflict? That would be a hard no. What about American Songwriter? That's a no also. How about the New York Post or TheWrap? As I'm sure you can guess, those are a NO also. But, but, but, I thought she was "legendary" and has always been notable? So, what do we have then? News sources only covering her for a single event that has nothing do with her musical career and wouldn't be notable otherwise, and a few bad reviews of her music from a single source. That's it. I'd call that not being notable. If you think the two bad reviews are enough for notability, cool. I disagree, but at least we could make the discussion about that instead of what it's been about. Voting delete on my judgement of what I was able to find definitely doesn't warrant the hyper hyperbolic and slandering messages above this one. Even if you disagree with my assessment of her notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "legendary" is used once in the article, in a direct quote of an author in American Songwriter, and thrice by you in making an argument to delete this article. At a time when racial injustice is prominent in the news, I think it is supremely disrespectful to argue in favor of deleting an article about a Black artist whose stage name has been co-opted (irrespective of intent) by a more prominent White group. Ms. White is notable enough for a Wikipedia article irrespective of opinions about her music's quality or of usage of one word that one publication used to describe her. White 720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with nearly everything AdamAnt has said, but I believe we’ve strayed significantly from the topic at hand. I also think that any notion that deleting this article is 1) Racist or 2) disrespectful to a social movement, is not a good faith one. KidAd (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was actually used a few other places and last time I checked I can use whatever word I want to describe someone. Anyway, it was more a comment about how over hyped her career was being treated her and other places then a direct qoute. Thanks though. And yeah sure, lets not delete any article about a black person (including this one) for a while until racial issues with black people calm down, like that will ever happen, so we don't trigger the race baiters. Like they don't come out of the woodwork at the slightest provocation like you just did. A few weeks ago I was blocked from Wikidata for a while becuase I requested an entey be deleted about an Indian business. Which for some dumb reason the admin thought was racially motivated and tantamount to harrassement toward Indian people. Of course he was Indian. Go figure. I wouldn't be supprised if the same thing happened here. "How dare you vote delete on an article about a black person. Racist!" I do an AfD having do with nurses and someone says I hate women. I do one for a Jewish donut company and a Jew calls me anti-semitic. I put a notability banner on a worship bands aritcle and I get slammed for hating Christians. Now I vote delete on an article about a black person and use the word legendary and I'm not being sensitive to the moment black people are having. Christ, seriously its always something with you people. Also, thanks to KidAd for the comment. Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From your comment: "trigger the race baiters," "dumb reason," "a Jew," "you people." Have you considered re-evaluating your use of language? If people keep criticizing you for being insensitive, there might be a kernel of truth to examine. White 720 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Jews are called Jews. Therefore, a single Jew would be called a Jew wouldn't they? Even dictionaries and Google search use the term Jew to describe a single Jewish person. Plus, the Jewish person that called me anti-Semitic was pretty up front that he was Jewish. So, I see nothing insensitive or bad language about me saying he was. It's not like I can remember his user name. People like you get offended whatever term someone uses anyway. I never brought jack to any of the people went off on me, just I like I didn't bring up race here. You did, just so you could then call me insensitive. Which you probably would have done whatever my response was, because the game of people like you. Good job sticking it to the white racist power structure by race baiting some rando on Wikipedia. "clap, clap, clap." Now you can go tell your twitter palls that you just totally ended racism by calling someone insensitive for using a term out of a dictionary "eye roll." Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I agree with KidAd about forum. Your comments are off topic and disruptive. So, go race bait somewhere else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Anita is getting plenty of public exposure now, no matter her status was a week ago. Plus she has made it clear she is not giving up sole rights to her stage name. [1] What are we going to do- Delete her biography just to recreate it when they go to court and makes all the headlines? And I’m 99.99% sure White will win that lawsuit too. Yep - Her biography is a keeper now. And for the record, WP:ILIKEIT has nothing to do with this... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has enough independent refs to make her notable.User:Davidstewartharvey
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/Anita_White&oldid=1137568526"