Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaclyn Bradley Palmer

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. Sandstein 18:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer[edit]

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

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer (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)

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer is a hugely successful singer songwriter with multiple albums to her name, who has featured prominently on a Dutch talent show, is an acclaimed filmmaker and ground-breaking therapist. Or so I inferred from reading the article - but looking deeper it appears this is all a serious exaggeration. In fact, I can find no evidence she even meets any inclusion guidelines.

Does she meet the WP:GNG? There certainly are articles about her, particularly about her appearence on a Dutch talent show. So we can at least be confident she exists. But is she notable? These articles are almost exclusively local publications featuring local-interest stories. Such publications routinely feature local residents in this manner; the articles do not of themselves appear to demonstrate any sort of global or even national significance and the lack of national coverage is telling. Even the prominent claim that she was featured as one of the "most interesting poeople" of 2016 by a Cleveland Magazine loses it shine when you realise 30 people were all the most interesting in that year.

As a musician, WP:MUSICBIO provides the clearest guidance. She certainly hasn't had the level of success demanded there - her albums appear to be unpublished or self-published (see here, for example) and her highly lauded appearance on The Voice of Holland seems to have been a brief early-round few minutes in the spotlight - way less than the third place or better demanded for notability.

Her film work, similarly, appears to be at best self-published. It's hard to verify - the article says she directed and produced "the documentary on the USS Indianapolis" but it's unreferenced and gives no clue as to what the documentary actually is. Her "musical tribute to the victims of gun violence" appears to be a self-produced video for one of her self-produced songs.

Her music therapy work is an interesting string in her bow but again not an indication of notability - huge numbers of people are involved in the running of clinical studies; there does not appear to be anything especially notable about hers.

I wish her good luck in achieving her aims, but it appears to be way WP:TOOSOON for an article yet.

Then there's the question of how we have come to have an article that is so overly exaggerated. It becomes clear when you look at the edit history: it was created by someone with the ID Jacklynlala, a WP:SPA that has made no other edits before or since. It was subsequently significantly developed by another SPA going by the name of musicpressinc (now blocked) and then by an SPA IP that knows the subject well enough to know how she thinks. Finally it has been edited by a new user who has also not edited anything else but did feel sufficiently proficient to remove a maintenance tag in support of the IP which had twice removed it and twice been reverted. In fact, of 150 edits in total, 116 are accounted for by just these four editors, and together they have developed the article in turn. The obvious conflict of interest, most likely an autobiography, severely undermines any suggestion that the article may be balanced and neutral, and explains the clear promotional content within it.

So for reasons of notability and spam, this article does not belong. It should be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly Dorsetonian, I don't know what this chick did to you to make you so angry that you had to write this thesis I just had to read. Read 3 lines of this and you know it fails WP:Promotional by miles. Maybe could be considered with serious, serious rewrite. Seafox289 (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve If the article has been created by people who do not understand Wikipedia policies, that is a reason for us to re-consider and improve, not summarily delete. If there is a Wikipedia policy saying that WP:GNG should ignore local-interest publications, I do not know that policy. Also, honestly, Seafox289, "this chick"? Let us show ourselves better representatives of Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the local-interest publications, I should clarify. WP:MUSICBIO is pretty clear that only winning 1st-3rd place in a "major music competition" is of itself notable. When someone appears on such a show there will be a degree of local interest, and so it follows there a level of routine coverage of contestants placed fourth and lower which does not confer notability. I don't see evidence there is anything exceptional here, so the GNG doesn't appear to be met. If the subject isn't notable, no amount of article improvement will make her so. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what to make of the nominator's obsessively long explanation, and charges of a conflict of interest might be a little beyond the tradition of assuming good faith at Wikipedia. The nominator has a convincing analysis on how this woman does not meet the notability requirements for a musician, but since she has done many things the article could possibly survive on her work in film (WP:FILMMAKER) or science (WP:NACADEMIC). Alas, in all three endeavors she comes up just a little short on notability for a Wikipedia article. Without that, the article does seem like an attempt at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with DOOMSDAYER520 and also with Dorsetonian that the topic of article does not rise to NMUSICIAN, NFILMMAKER, NACADEMIC, or for that matter WP:NPOL. My Keep !vote is based on WP:GNG criterion, specifically "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This criterion is clearly met by the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to article 1 of criteria for notability, this artist has many independent reference/news sources and has made national/ international headlines, more of which I found and have been added. Subjective wording and advertisement wording has been removed mostly by House of Change. -more editing may be needed in this respect but subjectivity improved. These items contribute to verification of notability. Up for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triptopia (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Triptopia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD nomination could be a poster child for contemptuous dismissal of biographies because we're offended by amateur editing, even if the subject clearly meets GNG. Multiple independent sources wrote about JBP because she did a lot of different things that happened to interest multiple independent RS reporters, even if her activities fail to interest someone so offended by amateur efforts at editing Wikipedia that they want to torch rather than improve a BLP. Then instead of policy arguments, we get reasons why multiple "reliable sources" shouldn't count: local interest articles shouldn't count, being one of the 30 most interesting people in Cleveland shouldn't count, etc. Another way to ignore GNG is by concentrating on the (irrelevant) failure to meet a bunch of other categories of notability. So what, if the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL? She meets GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseOfChange: I suggest that you quit while you're ahead. The nominator did indeed mention that the article has been constructed by new editors, which is relevant if new folks are unaware of Wikipedia's long-standing policies. But even so, the entire discussion since then has been about notability, as it should be in a deletion discussion. You have given your opinion on Ms. Palmer's notability three different times, and your unfounded accusation of discrimination against newbies does not make Ms. Palmer more notable. Your opinion on that matter is here for all to see, thrice. Now let the consensus process play out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:HouseOfChange: please don't assume the motivation for my nomination, still less criticise me for what you perceive it to be. FWIW, I am not "offended" by the "amateur editing" - if anything I am impressed by the apparently expert editing which I think has made the subject appear far more notable than she is. You accuse me of avoiding policy arguments but the deletion rationale addresses precisely the relevant policies and guidelines for inclusion, and in response to your initial comment I had clarified why I assert that the GNG is not met at all, again with reference to policy and guideline. If anything, your arguments do not address the concerns that the GNG is not met, just merely assert that it is, and resort to personal attacks, from which I conclude you have no reasoned response to give. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my inappropriate comments, Dorsetonian, and have edited the page to strike them out. My "reasoned response" has been to try to improve the article, removing puffery and adding information from WP:RS, hoping to be able to demonstrate my belief that she passes GNG. If you look at my userpage, you will see that I like to do article repair when I think it will help. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, HouseOfChange - I appreciate that. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's certainly been some COI editing here, and a bunch of trivia/puffery is included (appearing on an episode of House Hunters is almost certainly not worth mentioning on any biography). The source [1] and the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by blocked sockpuppet struck out. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially PR, based on PR. This is an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important. The lede paragraph epitomizes the technique: "one of the Most Interesting People of 2016.[5]". (and it then turns out from the ref that "one of the" means one out of 30. Such a listing of people really means, one of the 30 people their publicists have most strongly pushed us to include" That amounts to an utterly trivial so-called award from a local paper. Similarly, one of the arguments for keep was "the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG," Coverage of trivial publicity events is not substantial coverage. Her claimed significant medical work has only 28 citations for its most cited paper. None of her films or recordings are notable. The argument for notability depends upon an uncritical misuse of the gNG, ignoring the requirements for the publications being significant and independent--the susceptibility of the GNG to such misuse is the key reason I think it's essentially worthless, because peopel can interpret those terms according to the result they want.
In any case, notability arguemnts are unnecesary here. This is pure promotional biography, and NOTPROMOTION is a basic part of policy, and requires deletion regardless of notability , just as does copyvio. I don't like to cut short a discussion with even a well-merited speedy, but this is really G11 territory. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOPROMO. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform period. Notability is a secondary issue. The article cannot be kept in its current condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The less famous a person is, the more suspicion that an article is promotional there will be. You could write two articles of random people using exactly the same types of sources, the same tone of voice, and everything, and the article about the less famous person will appear to be more promotional. Here, significant amounts of the article were written by sources close to the subject of the article. I understand that maybe the article contributors were not deliberately attempting to be promotional, but evertheless this article fails WP:Promotional in tone and in content and so should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an original platform for promotion: it can reflect notability, but it cannot be the source of original promotion. Egroeg5 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve Currently, the article is indeed promotional and needs some serious rewriting, but the subject is notable enough and does merit a wikipedia page. Goharshady (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently, discussion seems to be focusing on:
  1. Does the subject of the article fail WP:Notability and WP:MUSICBIO?
  2. Does the article fail WP:Promotional?
If the article fails either criteria, then the article is eligible for deletion.
I am not going to comment on WP:Notability, even though I personally find it doubtful that the subject is sufficiently notable.
That said, it is very clear that the article fails WP:Promotional. In fact, the article so fails the second criteria that, quoting from DGG above, this is really G11 Speedy Deletion territory.
To those who suggest that we rewrite or improve the article, the problem is that the subject is not very notable and it would be very difficult to rewrite the article in a less promotional way. In fact, take out the promotion, and it becomes doubtful that she is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Again quoting DGG above, this is "an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important." Maybe she has just enough notability for Wikipedia, but I think a fresh start-over of the article (deletion) is the best option, until the subject becomes more notable. Egroeg5 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROMO \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to draftspace There is a conflict of interest going on, failing WP:AB as well as WP:PROMO as stated above. Perhaps if it was moved to draftspace, the article could be sufficiently reworked, and after which if the editors could prove notability, they could go to WP:PR before moving it to mainspace. But as of now, it should not be in mainspace. Henry TALK 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this idea from HenryMP02 is good. I am not one of the original article creators, but I have plenty of room in my sandbox for the draft so far. If more WP:RS cover the activities of this very energetic person, then it will be a shame to lose the work others have done so far on the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2018 (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/Jaclyn_Bradley_Palmer&oldid=1137939108"