Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Hummel

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hummel[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)

No evidence of notability. Fails NARTIST, GNG. Promotional, have to assume there is a COI. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Kansas. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest any notabilityTheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found Elizabeth Hummel’s Java Joe’s encore (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2014), and on ProQuest 271550042, "The simple truths of Elizabeth Hummel" (San Diego Union-Tribune, 1996, which seems likely to be in-depth coverage based on the 3 grafs available in the abstract, because it includes biographical information and commentary on her music). Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, the article's content does not correspond to WP:NPEOPLE. Neither does it refer to any reliable sources. ThegaBolt (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP lacks in-depth coverage supporting that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider researching if you want to continually follow the ARS rescue list. Our mission is not to look at the article as it is... the mission is to improve the article. Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as Delete but I was asked to relist it to allow an editor to participate in it so I have reverted my closure and relisted it. Please be aware that another admin can close this when they choose to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I requested the reopen of this deletion discussion because I had just started to research and had just posted it on the article rescue list. So far I have added 3 references. I will continue to research the person. Thanks Beccaynr for getting the research started. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get the participants here to take another look to see if the subject meets WP:BASIC after the rewrite. I have added at least three non-trivial news references. I wanted to present the best version of the article since it had zero references and just looked like bullet points of promotion previously. @TheLongTone, Beccaynr, and ThegaBolt:. Thanks for considering! Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I think there is a credible argument to keep under WP:BASIC. But I see the counter arguments to that too, local coverage and includes interviews. BASIC requires that coverage is reliable (it is) and independence of the source (that depends how we interpret that). Are interviews independent? I've seen this argued both ways here. I think they are independent for notability, not for verifiability. Is only local coverage OK? Some editors think yes, some no. I see no rule excluding local only coverage, if it is reliable. So this is not clear, it could be argued either way, but I do think it satisfies WP:BASIC, borderline, thanks to the recent improvements, which supersede earlier !votes CT55555(talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note - right now, there are only two sources which could even be considered in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Both are from the The San Diego Union-Tribune. The other sources are either passing mentions or notably unreliable (attempting to identify "Let’s Jump Off The Toxic Treadmill" as a useful source is very misguided). As it stands, one Tribune source has not even been read by anyone as far as I can tell (it is abstract only and no one seems to have the rights to read it). In any event, 2 sources would be the bare minimum to pass GNG and since these are from the same publication 20 years apart, it seems to be less about the individual being notable, and more like a "what happened to this person, who used to perform with famous people but never became famous". Accordingly, I maintain that this article fails notability requirements and should be deleted. There is nothing notable about her career or achievements, even if she was discussed in a newspaper twice. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working to clean up and expand the article as a way to assess notability, and I have access to a 3-graf preview of the 1996 San Diego Union-Tribune through ProQuest. It is labeled an interview, but one graf in the abstract offers secondary commentary on her album. Also, I included a mention of "Let's Jump Off The Toxic Treadmill" because it is mentioned in the San Diego Union-Tribune. In the meantime, it appears MrsSnoozyTurtle was not included in the pings of previous participants in this discussion, so I am including a ping now. Beccaynr (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - per WP:BASIC and WP:NMUSIC. Per WP:GNG fn 4, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source, and the three San Diego Union-Tribune articles currently cited seem reasonable to consider as one source: the 1996 source is labeled as an interview in ProQuest with only the abstract available, with some secondary commentary of her album visible; in 1998, there is an article about the 1998 Lilith Fair tour that in its abstract refers to her as one of the "lesser-known talents" and "veteran San Diego singer-songwriter Elizabeth Hummel" - based on the 2-graf abstract, the article appears to focus broadly on the tour and I am not able to assess the depth of coverage focused on her, although it might help identify how she was involved in Lilith Fair, which I do not think is clear from various sources; there is also the 2014 article mostly based on an interview with some secondary context that has been helpful for developing the article. There is also the 2019 coverage in The Olympian, which is based on an interview but includes secondary commentary about her contemporary work. Other sources in the article include her personal website, a blurb in the San Diego Reader, brief mentions in a book about songbirds, and her AllMusic discography. While the WP:BASIC guideline permits multiple independent sources to be combined to support notability, each source appears to have limitations, and more appears to be needed to support a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beccaynr at least it looks like a proper Wikipedia article now. Easier to assess the notability. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2022 (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.