Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quenlin Blackwell

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. Rough consensus is that the available sources are insufficient for notability at this time. Sandstein 10:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quenlin Blackwell[edit]

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

Quenlin Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable streamer; being nominated for the Streamy award is a start, but she didn't win. Most coverage is about the potential "grooming" by Diplo, which is not enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Reference
Youtube 1. "About Quenlin Blackwell". YouTube.
Instagram 2. ^ @quenblackwell (January 18, 2022). "HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME. IM 21 AHAHA (swipe to the end for a surprise🤫)" – via Instagram.
Promo 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Rise of Quen Blackwell". Sennheiser Newsroom. March 24, 2021. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 4. ^ Song, Sandra (September 2, 2022). "Quenlin Blackwell Needs Her Own Show". Paper. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 5. ^ Leupold, Dennis (November 25, 2022). "Generation V: Quen Blackwell". V. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Interview, Promo 6. ^ Canzona, Carissa (March 1, 2023). "Quenlin Blackwell reflects on internet comedy career during PPC, BAS event". The Pitt News. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 7. ^ Lil Nas X (January 5, 2023). "Quenlin the Entertainer". Highsnobiety. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 8. ^ Jump up to:a b Chikhoune, Ryma (February 23, 2021). "The Latest Gen Z Internet Star to Sign With Hollywood Agency UTA". WWD. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 9. ^ Kelly, Dylan (November 19, 2020). "Alton Mason and Quen Blackwell Star in SG Lewis' New Video". Paper. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 10. ^ Chan, J. Clara (October 20, 2021). "YouTube Streamy Awards: MrBeast Leads With 7 Nominations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 11. ^ Weiss, Geoff (September 10, 2021). "FaZe Rug's New YouTube Original Looks A Lot Like 'Fear Factor' For Influencers". Tubefilter. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 12. ^ Parkel, Inga (April 23, 2022). "How to tune into the Coachella 2022 live stream". The Independent. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 13. ^ Kim, YeEun (December 1, 2022). "Latto Fronts Savage X Fenty's December 2022 Campaign". Hypebae. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Keep provided no sources different from the above.
The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.
BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  17:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per implied request; while there is weak consensus in favor of deletion at the moment, more exhaustive analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep; While there are quite a few sources which don't demonstrate SIGCOV, there to me are just about enough that do. She just barely passes our notability guidelines for me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the sources you think pass SIGCOV?  // Timothy :: talk  00:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The article on WWD and Paper are the big ones. I think that the Sennheiser one also fits. Most others are passing coverage, but I think that the three I mentioned establish that the subject is independently notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Sennheiser source is PROMO and non-independent (they collaborated to produce a "mini doc", she reps their wireless earbuds (which are prominently displayed in the article pictures)) Red XN. The Paper source is a PROMO first-person interview consisting almost entirely of quotes and very limited secondary independent coverage (reporting what the subject "said" or "felt" or "aspired" is not S/I) Red XN. The WWD source is PROMO and has all of 5 independent sentences on her Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JoelleJay: Saying a source is PROMO would, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:PROMO, and WP:SPONSORED, imply that an article is either explicitly sponsored or is from a source that clearly exists solely to promote the subject. Paper covers all sorts of entertainment news, WWD covers fashion news, and other sources seem to be getting ignored entirely in this discussion; none of the sources are stated to be sponsored. Can you identify what exactly about the sources you listed, then, are promotional? The number of independent sentences about her in the WWD article (6) also seems to me a moot argument when that is half of the sentences in the article. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PROMO does not only imply those properties. It also implies social media marketing efforts, which is exactly what UTA does. Anyway, the main issue with either source is not that it's promotional, but that it contains very little independent, secondary coverage and thus doesn't count towards GNG. The proportion of sentences on her in an article is totally irrelevant, it's the absolute amount of coverage, the content it contains, and the category of media it's published in that counts; in this case it must also be considered in the context of an announcement that she signed with UTA. I didn't evaluate the other sources because they weren't mentioned as actually containing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 23 Feb 2021 WWD announcement is derived entirely from this Feb 3 press release on ITP Live, a "leading 360° Influencer Marketing Agency". It is therefore NOT independent and definitely PROMO. JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WWD article being "entirely derived" from the ITP article and that article being a press release are both WP:OR. Based on what I'm seeing, they're also inaccurate. Both articles contain information that the other lacks, and there is another report of the signing in Billboard that has even more information not included in either the ITP or WWD articles. benǝʇᴉɯ 09:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Have you looked at ITP? It is literally an influencer brand management company, not a news group. Nothing coming out of it is independent. That eliminates the bolded text of WWD's Quen Blackwell is now added to the bunch. The 20-year-old began garnering attention at the age of 14 for her comedic videos on Vine, the now defunct app. She has more than 10 million followers across her social platforms, including 5.4 million on TikTok. Most recently, Blackwell appeared in the “Mean Girls”-inspired ad campaign for pop star Halsey’s beauty brand, About-Face. Blackwell was also seen in Diplo’s music video for the single “Horizon” and has partnered with companies and brands that include Amazon and Kim Kardashian West’s Skims. (compare to ITP's The star – who is now 20 – initially rose to fame on Vine with her comedic videos at the age of 14. She then moved on to TikTok – where she grew an overall audience of 5.7 million followers on TikTok and 1.7 million on Instagram. Her comedic talent, charismatic personality, and large fan-base resulted in multiple big brands such as Puma, Kim Kardashian’s Skims and Halsey’s About Face makeup brand reaching out to Blackwell to feature her in campaigns.)
What little additional detail is provided in WWD and Billboard are nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is well-spotted. I think that leads me to re-assess the WWD article as not adding sufficiently more than the press release. Suriname0 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ITP ref is, to our knowledge, not a press release. It is in the website's news section, where other social media news that is evidently not promotional is published. It is never called a press release, which would be rare for a site that only puts out press releases (i.e., AP's press release section, PR Newswire.) Saying that it is and that "nothing coming out of it is independent" is WP:OR. The other much more important piece of WP:OR here is claiming that both WWD and Billboard got their information from that article when neither of them mention ITP as a source. Two reliable sources reporting on a story that another less reliable source reported on beforehand does not mean that the latter cancels out the former if neither are using the latter as a source. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the original source for the extremely similar WWD etc. announcements (sans the Blackwell reaction quote): this piece (published Jan 4 2021) by a company that styles itself as "The market leading resource for verified contacts, insight, industry planning information and audience demographics data, unavailable from any other source. Identify editorial, PR, dressing, gifting and product placement opportunities and target your influencer and talent marketing outreach using the industry's preferred planning calendar and contacts directory." Among its services are "Direct contacts (agents, management, publicists, stylists...) and social audience insight for 60,000+ personalities and influencers, including the nichest talent, enabling outreach and engagement" and "Connect with over 50,000 international agents, publicists, managers, PR contacts, [...]". At the end of its announcement for Blackwell, The Media Eye offers subscriber-only "full contact details". JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - I think I disagree with JoelleJay about the Paper and WWD sources. (Sennheiser is definitely non-independent.) See my assessment below. Suriname0 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated vote due the discussion about the WWD source above. I left the table as-is, but I think WWD does not meet SIGCOV. Suriname0 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selective quotation" still does not count towards GNG: nothing that comes from the subject herself is secondary or independent. And editorial commentary must be secondary itself; most of what is said by the interviewer is in first-person. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I see several instances that I interpret as editorial commentary, not in first person, that summarizes both what Blackwell is saying and potentially other information, for example: When Vine came around, Blackwell decided to pivot towards short-form comedy content under the name “Quensadilla,” which quickly earned her a devoted fan base that eventually followed her to TikTok once the six-second video sharing platform shut down in 2016. and Blackwell is now shifting her energy towards the IRL endeavors she’s always dreamt of through the industry connections she’s made thanks to her current position, meaning lots of acting lessons, learning about screenwriting and live stand-up sets, where she’ll have plenty to talk about. Suriname0 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Suriname0
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
V Magazine Yes Yes ~ The source discusses the subject directly, but without much detail and primarily relying on quotes ~ Partial
Paper Magazine Yes While the article is based on an interview, selective quotation and editorial commentary indicate secondary coverage Yes Yes ✔ Yes
WWD Yes Yes Yes Article is short, but meets the "1+ paragraph of non-quotations" threshold I tend to use for sources like this ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep per the source analysis provided by Suriname0, which is much more in depth than the earlier one provided by TimothyBlue (which I referred to as “weak” at the recent deletion review and still find it to be weak). Frank Anchor 22:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The effort to build up some kind of fame or even notability out of promotional and self-promotional citations is indeed commendable. But to what end? We are forced to peruse a great looking table about the worthiness of an interview because "selective quotation and editorial commentary indicate secondary coverage". No, they don't. They simply are the difference between an interview and a transcript. Then, more interviews here by a "global fashion and media brand passionate about product and the stories that shape them" aka an advertorial. What about slam-dunk unworthy citations such as the Billboard three-way? What about routine name drops such as this? Are we supposed to concentrate on the maybe-maybes and get distracted from the serious dearth of proper sourcing? Even the changes-of-heart are acknowledging weakness in the sourcing. The subject fails not just WP:GNG but also WP:NCREATIVE. Give her time and who knows. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to say, I find this really unwarranted. Suriname0 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would normally warrant some explanation, but let's move on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2023 (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/Quenlin_Blackwell&oldid=1149741058"